Foster, Robertson etc
-
@Crucial always easier to fix something you broke than do the work to ensure it doesnt break
-
@taniwharugby said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial always easier to fix something you broke than do the work to ensure it doesnt break
I’m not letting them off the hook at all. The treated the women’s game very poorly and ruined a coach as well as a team
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Still only opinion. And blaming on-field performance on NZR or coaching ignores the improvement across the board on other countries.
Weren't you one of the few on here trying to claim previous coaches did worse despite Foster's record being the worst of the professional-era?
The Wayne Smith era was up against a Wallabies team that was a once-in-a-generation GOAT side and the Boks were also very very good. Also the Poms had their dad's army side under Woodward and they were also bloody good. This current mob was getting beat by teams that weren't even as good as them.
Also Wayne Smith was just 42, had only been coaching professionally for 3 years when he took over ABs in 2000, he also didn't have a backroom staff (apart from Tony Gilbert) & it's highlighted in Oliver's book how Wayne had to stay up to the early hours of the morning pouring over analysis because they didn't have any analysts either (unlike Mitchell, Henry, etc. afterwards).
So Smith clearly had to juggle a lot more responsibilities as AB's head coach than Foster did, Smith also coached both attack and defense - in addition to head coach & team analyst. In contrast Foster at 54, (12 years on Smith in 2000) with a complete team of backroom staff (including analysts) and with 18 years of prior coaching should've had the necessary experience & knowledge to succeed by then - however he didn't.
Wayne Smith had very legitimate excuses for his OK record at the time, Foster simply didn't.
-
@kiwi_expat you have just excused other refs based on their opponents being “once in a lifetime “ versions but are happy to ignore an Irish side that has never been anywhere near as good and France side like we haven’t seen in a long time. Argentina also playing at peak levels.
Can’t have it both ways -
@kiwi_expat Yes and the team drivers were not the most professional either. We had a gaping hole in the 10 channel on defence that the French had splintered to pieces in '99 and it was very much even leakier in the Smith year and a bit.
-
@Crucial The Irish side we beat 42-16 in the 1st test while Schmidt filled-in for Foster & wasn't involved in the other 2 tests, just a coincidence?
-
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial The Irish side we beat 42-16 in the 1st test while Schmidt filled-in for Foster & wasn't involved in the other 2 tests, just a coincidence?
scott hansons crusaders better than robertsons then?
-
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial The Irish side we beat 42-16 in the 1st test while Schmidt filled-in for Foster & wasn't involved in the other 2 tests, just a coincidence?
Same Irish side though. One good enough to adjust after the first test and not allow the same game.
You have to at least give the opposing teams credit for beating us. Otherwise it is plain arrogance.
There is no denying that certain teams that have not previously been much chop are currently very good. -
@ploughboy no because Schmidt ran the training week with Foster in isolation, he prepared the team.
-
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@ploughboy no because Schmidt ran the training week with Foster in isolation
how many training did rabertson do?
-
@ploughboy said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@ploughboy no because Schmidt ran the training week with Foster in isolation
how many training did rabertson do?
The 3 they ran in Chch before they left on Wednesday night.
-
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@ploughboy no because Schmidt ran the training week with Foster in isolation, he prepared the team.
Don’t retell the reality to suit yourself. Foster selected the team (including introducing Scooter at 6) and was involved in the preparation through zoom calls. He gave the instructions and Schmidt carried them out.
-
@Crucial there's a difference between talking over Zoom and being on-the-grass actively coaching the team.
Joe Schmidt's attention to detail & driving standards is a real feature of his coaching and he would've certainly brought a lot of that during the training week.
All Blacks: Aaron Smith credits Joe Schmidt for end-of-year form
All Blacks centurion Aaron Smith credits his upturn in form last year to the inclusion of Joe Schmidt in his team's the backroom staff.
“He was a game changer for me,” Smith told SENZ Breakfast. “The way he saw the game, he had clips from training, he had clips from games way back, he really just gets rugby and he got my mindset.”
“Joe wasn’t showing me clips of me running, he was just showing me opportunities, he was showing me what other nines had done and if it’s in your brain that’s what happens, things just react.”
“If I hadn’t gone to get that help I don’t think I would’ve been able to find some form again at the end.”
-
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial there's a difference between talking over Zoom and being on-the-grass actively coaching the team.
Joe Schmidt's attention to detail & driving standards is a real feature of his coaching and he would've certainly brought a lot of that during the training week.
All Blacks centurion Aaron Smith credits his upturn in form last year to the inclusion of Joe Schmidt in his team's the backroom staff.
“He was a game changer for me,” Smith told SENZ Breakfast. “The way he saw the game, he had clips from training, he had clips from games way back, he really just gets rugby and he got my mindset.”
“Joe wasn’t showing me clips of me running, he was just showing me opportunities, he was showing me what other nines had done and if it’s in your brain that’s what happens, things just react.”
“If I hadn’t gone to get that help I don’t think I would’ve been able to find some form again at the end.”
Now you are just changing tack. You OP was that when Foster had nothing to do with the side and Schmidt took over the same team had drastically different results. That apparently showed that Foster brings the team down.
Also implied that the other results would have been different which totally ignores the fact the there were two teams involved and one improved. The Ireland changes and tweaks in play were a masterpiece of coaching and player adaptation after analysis of our (Schmidt’s according to you) game. You are reluctant to give them any credit. -
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Weren't you one of the few on here trying to claim previous coaches did worse despite Foster's record being the worst of the professional-era?
Not really. I've consistently said Foster inherited big problems which needed time to fix and that would have impacted any coach, but also that he wasn't the man to fix them and should have gone after Ireland III.
Wayne Smith's history has got bugger-all to do with anything.
-
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial The Irish side we beat 42-16 in the 1st test while Schmidt filled-in for Foster & wasn't involved in the other 2 tests, just a coincidence?
Like the Irish team was shit and the mighty AB's would always wallop them if they just picked the right coach?
I've lived in the UK for decades with the accusations that AB fans are arrogant and think all other teams are inferior or only get lucky wins. Can't think how the UK media could get that idea, can you?
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Weren't you one of the few on here trying to claim previous coaches did worse despite Foster's record being the worst of the professional-era?
I've consistently said Foster inherited big problems which needed time to fix and that would have impacted any coach, but also that he wasn't the man to fix them and should have gone after Ireland III.
But you are missing the point that Foster was central to creating those problems in the first place.
It's well documented that Foster's role was expanded in the last 2-3 years of his Hansen tenure. Foster was given authority over game-plan, strategy, co-ordinating training sessions -- and this coincided with the All Black's decline over Hansen's last few years.
Hansen said it himself that in his final year Foster was effectively running most things as Hansen had transitioned into a much less hands-on role, moving into the background at that stage.
And 2019 was a dire year, that's what happens when you entrust underqualified mates to influential positions.
-
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Weren't you one of the few on here trying to claim previous coaches did worse despite Foster's record being the worst of the professional-era?
I've consistently said Foster inherited big problems which needed time to fix and that would have impacted any coach, but also that he wasn't the man to fix them and should have gone after Ireland III.
But you are missing the point that Foster was central to creating those problems in the first place.
So The Head Coach isn't responsible for causing problems then?
It's well documented that Foster's role was expanded in the last 2-3 years of his Hansen tenure. Foster was given authority over game-plan, strategy, co-ordinating training sessions -- and this coincided with the All Black's decline over Hansen's last few years.
Apparently not....
Hansen said it himself that in his final year Foster was effectively running most things as Hansen had transitioned into a much less hands-on role, moving into the background at that stage.
Oh wait....so now the Head Coach (Hansen) IS responsible
And 2019 was a dire year, that's what happens when you entrust underqualified mates to influential positions.
Yep. The Mighty All Blacks would smash anyone if only they'd pick your bloke as Coach.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@nostrildamus said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Now we don't know if there is a process, if people are genuinely interviewed and the whole process is a farce.
The only way the public would know - and to stop media speculation and conspiracy theories - would be if NZR made the whole process public. They aren't going to do that any more than any other business organisation. That doesn't mean their PR & People Management shouldn't be critiqued though.
No. As I said above, they made parts of the process public knowledge in 2019. They didn't even tell people they were interviewing this year until they are halfway through or possibly finished!
I'm not asking peope who failed to be selected as AB coach then should be named now, or even if the public should know who is applying. I'm just suggesting some consistency would be preferable for most concerned (and I don't know why the NZR are acting as they do but perhaps they have their reasons).
Consistency in what? Genuine question. If you're talking about clarity on picking the new coach, I'd agree. But perhaps they have made a conscious decision not to respond in light of previous media frenzies?
Consistency with 2019. Yes they may be more secretive now than 2019 for reasons I don't know about.
If you think the 2019/2020 process is the same as it is now, or this current process is superior, bully for you. But I don't see any discernible progress and it being a free country I'm voicing my opinion.
Absolutely. And NZR has a similar right to run their employment processes in a way they feel is best. Personally, I think the way they have handled Foster and tried to hang him out to dry has been appalling - probably other coaches too
Yes here I agree with you, he feels aggrieved, and perhaps was given private messages from NZR, I don't know why else he would change his mind from wanting to nominate himself to stepping down regardless at the end of the RWC. I don't think he would have spoken out unless he believed there was something going on to undermine him personally.
It doesn't seem to be a process that is creating much good feeling. Perhaps they have their reasons but they're not sharing them.
