Foster, Robertson etc
-
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Part of where NZR shoot themselves in the foot is that they don't release decision by dates.
If they said we will make a decision on the AB coaching role by XX date then it would be simply a matter of saying "we are running a process and by XX date you will all have your answer.I disagree. In the real world NZRU must abide by legal and employment processes to be fair to their employees and contractors. So they follow a process in assessing options, seek ratification through Board and then complete all the paperwork. With agents and lawyers around that can take indefinite time. That is why nothing gets announced until it is cast in stone and dates are rarely given. To do anything else is disrespectful and prejudicial on employees and contractors and sets up for grievance claims. If one part of the chain breaks then they can get significant delays. So it would be stupidity to publicly set a date that those they are negotiating with can pressure them on.
Meanwhile the media keeps beating up to fuel redneck expectations on social media and genuine fans get wound up too.
Perhaps NZRU are instead aware of all the factors involved and trying to prioritise the welfare and needs of all those they are responsible for. Or maybe I am entirely off the mark because nobody in the media has promoted that view....
-
@ARHS said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Part of where NZR shoot themselves in the foot is that they don't release decision by dates.
If they said we will make a decision on the AB coaching role by XX date then it would be simply a matter of saying "we are running a process and by XX date you will all have your answer.I disagree. In the real world NZRU must abide by legal and employment processes to be fair to their employees and contractors. So they follow a process in assessing options, seek ratification through Board and then complete all the paperwork. With agents and lawyers around that can take indefinite time. That is why nothing gets announced until it is cast in stone and dates are rarely given. To do anything else is disrespectful and prejudicial on employees and contractors and sets up for grievance claims. If one part of the chain breaks then they can get significant delays. So it would be stupidity to publicly set a date that those they are negotiating with can pressure them on.
Meanwhile the media keeps beating up to fuel redneck expectations on social media and genuine fans get wound up too.
Perhaps NZRU are instead aware of all the factors involved and trying to prioritise the welfare and needs of all those they are responsible for. Or maybe I am entirely off the mark because nobody in the media has promoted that view....
Totally agree with this post.
NZR do not have to provide a decision date to the public or media when that date may well form a part of their negotiations.
Let's say the JJ is the preferred coach but he asks that he be given a certain period of time to work through his current contractual situation with Japan. If that fell outside of the time you had said to media then even more questions are raised.
Let the process take its course FFS. -
@TheMojoman said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@taniwharugby said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Tim you have to wonder if Foster had any intention to stay on anyway, win or lose.
Nope, times up. There’s the door.
Yeah - in the spirit of the thread - to reiterate what I said 6 months ago.
NZRU - "Ian - this is your shot at the RWC. Tell us what you need. We want you to win it and we are supporting you all the way. But, afterwards, we are changing direction regardless of the result, because your record in the interim hasn't been good enough."
Ian might not like it, but it's a pretty fair stance.
Mitch got sacked with an 82% record. Wayne Smith got sacked with a 70% record. Fozzie's at 68% - a few percentage points off the (Uncle Laurie's) worst winning record of the past 40 years.
-
@Chris-B said in Foster, Robertson etc:
a few percentage points off the (Uncle Laurie's) worst winning record of the past 40 years.
So all we need from Fozzie is to pretty much match Uncle Laurie's RWC record, but, ensure they have their own chef and a food tester.
-
@Chris-B said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@TheMojoman said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@taniwharugby said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Tim you have to wonder if Foster had any intention to stay on anyway, win or lose.
Nope, times up. There’s the door.
Yeah - in the spirit of the thread - to reiterate what I said 6 months ago.
NZRU - "Ian - this is your shot at the RWC. Tell us what you need. We want you to win it and we are supporting you all the way. But, afterwards, we are changing direction regardless of the result, because your record in the interim hasn't been good enough."
Ian might not like it, but it's a pretty fair stance.
Mitch got sacked with an 82% record. Wayne Smith got sacked with a 70% record. Fozzie's at 68% - a few percentage points off the (Uncle Laurie's) worst winning record of the past 40 years.
Is Wayne Smith really above Fozzie, AND got sacked for that record? I thought Fozzie had a 71% record (with 2 draws), so they are equal - but Fozzie has exactly double the games. John Hart was around 73%. Was Mitch actually sacked for his 'record'?
Farrell and Galthie are a step above that, as was Rod Macqueen, and Eddie Jones by a tad - but nobody else besides Hansen and Henry and Mitch. There are some well respected coaches with a worse record than Fozzie.
-
@Chris-B said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@TheMojoman said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@taniwharugby said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Tim you have to wonder if Foster had any intention to stay on anyway, win or lose.
Nope, times up. There’s the door.
Yeah - in the spirit of the thread - to reiterate what I said 6 months ago.
NZRU - "Ian - this is your shot at the RWC. Tell us what you need. We want you to win it and we are supporting you all the way. But, afterwards, we are changing direction regardless of the result, because your record in the interim hasn't been good enough."
Ian might not like it, but it's a pretty fair stance.
Mitch got sacked with an 82% record. Wayne Smith got sacked with a 70% record. Fozzie's at 68% - a few percentage points off the (Uncle Laurie's) worst winning record of the past 40 years.
Smith wasn't sacked. He just wasn't reappointed when he expressed doubt over his ability to do the job
-
Moat people commenting about the process don't actually care about the process
They just want their guy picked
Anything else is just thrown out as incompetence and a flawed process
-
@canefan said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris-B said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@TheMojoman said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@taniwharugby said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Tim you have to wonder if Foster had any intention to stay on anyway, win or lose.
Nope, times up. There’s the door.
Yeah - in the spirit of the thread - to reiterate what I said 6 months ago.
NZRU - "Ian - this is your shot at the RWC. Tell us what you need. We want you to win it and we are supporting you all the way. But, afterwards, we are changing direction regardless of the result, because your record in the interim hasn't been good enough."
Ian might not like it, but it's a pretty fair stance.
Mitch got sacked with an 82% record. Wayne Smith got sacked with a 70% record. Fozzie's at 68% - a few percentage points off the (Uncle Laurie's) worst winning record of the past 40 years.
Smith wasn't sacked. He just wasn't reappointed when he expressed doubt over his ability to do the job
Offering to reapply for you job then not getting it is being sacked. Splitting hairs to say otherwise.
-
@ARHS said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris-B said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@TheMojoman said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@taniwharugby said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Tim you have to wonder if Foster had any intention to stay on anyway, win or lose.
Nope, times up. There’s the door.
Yeah - in the spirit of the thread - to reiterate what I said 6 months ago.
NZRU - "Ian - this is your shot at the RWC. Tell us what you need. We want you to win it and we are supporting you all the way. But, afterwards, we are changing direction regardless of the result, because your record in the interim hasn't been good enough."
Ian might not like it, but it's a pretty fair stance.
Mitch got sacked with an 82% record. Wayne Smith got sacked with a 70% record. Fozzie's at 68% - a few percentage points off the (Uncle Laurie's) worst winning record of the past 40 years.
Is Wayne Smith really above Fozzie, AND got sacked for that record? I thought Fozzie had a 71% record (with 2 draws), so they are equal - but Fozzie has exactly double the games. John Hart was around 73%. Was Mitch actually sacked for his 'record'?
Farrell and Galthie are a step above that, as was Rod Macqueen, and Eddie Jones by a tad - but nobody else besides Hansen and Henry and Mitch. There are some well respected coaches with a worse record than Fozzie.
%s are just a stat the means little without deeper analysis. A coach in the 6N will have a different set of games than a 3N coach to measure. Relative strengths of regular opponents the same. That makes even the comparison of NZ eras difficult. Some coaches have benefitted from the days of NH teams sending development sides over here. Some have faced Lions teams etc etc.
Judging solely on 'the ABs should not lose' is a bit arrogant as well.
Performance is definitely a KPI but performance isn't solely winning %
-
@ARHS That's a fair enough point for not having an end date, fair cop.
However currently the official word is that "the process" has not begun, and there will be a meeting in late Feb to start "the process".
Are we all to believe that "the process" hasn't started?
The debacle in SA by the NZRU was exactly that - a debacle. Highly unsettling for Foster yet he survived, probably raised Robertson's expectations only to dash them, thoroughly confused in NZ public.
All while apparently taking place without any official start to "the process" of finding the next AB coach.
Yeah right.
This is a very odd way of prioritizing the welfare and needs of all they are responsible for...
-
@BerniesCorner said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Can't understand the twisted criticism of Razor. He's done nothing wrong.
His intelligence and enthusiasm is exactly what is needed.
If Razor has inside knowledge not his fault. NZR have a very poor recent record of management.Up until NZR late last year Robertson was very quiet in the media about the All Blacks job. Then they stole his right hand man Jason Ryan, tapped his IP on how the All Blacks could do better, and informally offered him the head coach role, before deciding at the last minute that Foster should stay (due to one performance in South Africa). Why should he stay quiet when NZR keep telling him one thing in private and then doing another in public? He's laid his cards on the table, now if NZR had any integrity (which they don't) they should do the same.
-
@Windows97 There's no way that the process hasn't started. That is a stateent to tell the media to get out of the way and stop creating noise.
Appointing a new coach while the old one is in position is not something done before so I don't get why there is expectation around activities. -
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@BerniesCorner said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Can't understand the twisted criticism of Razor. He's done nothing wrong.
His intelligence and enthusiasm is exactly what is needed.
If Razor has inside knowledge not his fault. NZR have a very poor recent record of management.Up until NZR late last year Robertson was very quiet in the media about the All Blacks job. Then they stole his right hand man Jason Ryan, tapped his IP on how the All Blacks could do better, and informally offered him the head coach role, before deciding at the last minute that Foster should stay (due to one performance in South Africa). Why should he stay quiet when NZR keep telling him one thing in private and then doing another in public? He's laid his cards on the table, now if NZR had any integrity (which they don't) they should do the same.
you seems to both be saying Razor hasn't done anything wrong....but in a way where it seems like your arguing with each other
-
-
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial So the process has started - whilst it officially hasn't started?
Like I say - this mess is of their own doing and the debacle in SA another mess of their own doing.
Could they just stop being messy?
The mess is in your head.
You have zero knowledge of what is actually happening but keep accusing them of being terrible at it.
Wait until there is something to back the accusations up.
Suspicions of incompetence based on the public facing is one thing. This is entirely another. -
@Tim said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Chief executive Mark Robinson has presented a recommendation that the process to find the next All Blacks coach begin this month, and the unprecedented plan will be signed off on February 23 when the board next meets.
Look here it is - which is in the future...
So officially the process is yet to start.
Yet you as an apologist for the NZRU say it's already started.
So which one is it??
-
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Tim said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Chief executive Mark Robinson has presented a recommendation that the process to find the next All Blacks coach begin this month, and the unprecedented plan will be signed off on February 23 when the board next meets.
Look here it is - which is in the future...
So officially the process is yet to start.
Yet you as an apologist for the NZRU say it's already started.
So which one is it??
What does "apologist for the NZRU" even mean? He just disagrees with you, get a grip.
-
@Kirwan said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Tim said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Chief executive Mark Robinson has presented a recommendation that the process to find the next All Blacks coach begin this month, and the unprecedented plan will be signed off on February 23 when the board next meets.
Look here it is - which is in the future...
So officially the process is yet to start.
Yet you as an apologist for the NZRU say it's already started.
So which one is it??
What does "apologist for the NZRU" even mean? He just disagrees with you, get a grip.
An apologist is someone who speaks on someone else's behalf in order to explain a theory or their way of thinking. It's hardly a derogatory or inflammatory term.
-
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Part of where NZR shoot themselves in the foot is that they don't release decision by dates.
If they said we will make a decision on the AB coaching role by XX date then it would be simply a matter of saying "we are running a process and by XX date you will all have your answer."
That is all anyone would have to say.
But they leave it open and wishy washing and apparently talk to this person and that person "behind closed doors" while also apparently "running a process" and apparently this year "that process" has changed and wonder why there's a lot of speculation and people filling in the gaps.
They've created this monster themselves and I have little sympathy for them.
I actually have quite a lot of sympathy for any poor sod caught up in this whole AB coach debacle - including Foster himself.
Yep but what date, I keep repeating, why do they have to tell you and I who the AB coach is a year before he takes the gig. I have never known rugby boards anywhere saying you we will release the info on such and such a date. It's only a few self important people think they need to be told , but NZR or any other rugby board don't generally set dates, as they have plenty of time and need to check everything out.
