Foster, Robertson etc
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
its only the Cantabs that are playing shit under Foster and not for a proven winning coach.
If you're talking about Robertson, he's yet to prove himself at Test level. In reality, his coaching skills at Test level haven't even been evaluated as he hasn't taken an Assistant role in a Test side.
So, the solution is to select players underperforming from teams with less of a record and hope they stand up?
No. We select players who can make the step up to Test level. It doesn't matter which team they are from or how well that team has performed. That's why Aaron Smith and not Bryn Hall is first choice 9 and why Ma'a kept getting selected.
As the head fucking coach it is your responsibility to get the team to gel.
Agreed. But that requires players who can actually perform at Test level. Whether they are great under coach X or Y or not at SR level is irrelevant.
Are we that dense we can dismiss Razor based on the fact he's won nothing at test level despite his 80% winning record elsewhere? We're willing him to go to another powerhouse first?
How is pointing out Robertson has zero Test experience and Test Rugby is at higher level than Super Rugby dismissing Robertson?
So we select players who can make the step up. How do you know they can make the step up when they haven't played test footy?
You pick players on form and if they can't make the step up to Test level you drop them. What team they come from and who coaches that team, has fuck all to do with ability to perform at Test level.
If the coach keeps selecting players on form and then fail to make the step up, and continues to select players that fail to make the step up, maybe the coach is the issue. Brodie Retalick, Sam Whitelock, Beauden Barrett, Sam Cane, Aaron Smith et al have been in the side for 10 years and are shadows of their former selves. It's not just one or two who aren't performing, it's the entire squad consistently.
Which has bugger-all to do with your theory that because Crusaders players are great at Super level, the only reason they're not world-beaters at Test level is down to Foster.
"How is pointing out Robertson has zero Test experience and Test Rugby is at higher level than Super Rugby dismissing Robertson?"
That's exactly what you're doing. Because he has zero test experience, he cannot be considered for the ABs.
Complete horseshit. I've argued that after Ireland III NZR should have considered replacing Foster with Robertson.
The whole basis of your argument is if the players can't make the step up they should be dropped.
Yes. That's how selecting the best players for a team works.
The issue is the whole squad collectively aren't stepping up.
Which (again) has bugger-all to do with your blaming Foster for the inability of Crusaders players to make the step up to Test level from Super level.
If you want more Crusaders in the AB's or Robertson as Head Coach then fine, but ignoring facts doesn't strengthen your case.
The facts are, Foster has a shit record and players under an 80% winning coach are currently running at 25% over the last 8 tests. I'm not advocating for more Cantabs in the team, again, another fabricated point made up by you. Foster can't get any of the squad to play consistent, cohesive winning rugby. But what you want is to sack the entire squad because they are all playing shit. Now, is it they all can't make the step up or, maybe, just maybe the head coach who was part of the decline of AB rugby under Hansen is without answers and is responsible for getting this team to work and win?
Jeez, that's some mixture of irrelevance. horseshit and putting words into my mouth.
But let's come back to your original point - which is when Crusaders players who excel at Super Rugby level (you mentioned Crusaders players) can't repeat that form at Test Test level, it has fuck all to do Test rugby being at a higher level, but is all down to Foster.
Not only is that argument wrong, it is a mind-blowingly wrong and pretty pointless to debate.
Would it make it easier for your weak heart if I said the Super final making Blues players can't replicate their form at test level? For someone who thinks Robertson should have replaced Foster, you're defending his inability to galvanise the squad into a winning team. You're simply saying the 30 odd players in the squad can't make the step up therefore the entire squad should be dropped. OK, so name your 30 odd replacements who under Foster will make the step up and win the RWC next year.
-
@MajorRage I bet you enjoyed rubbing one out to that.
-
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
its only the Cantabs that are playing shit under Foster and not for a proven winning coach.
If you're talking about Robertson, he's yet to prove himself at Test level. In reality, his coaching skills at Test level haven't even been evaluated as he hasn't taken an Assistant role in a Test side.
So, the solution is to select players underperforming from teams with less of a record and hope they stand up?
No. We select players who can make the step up to Test level. It doesn't matter which team they are from or how well that team has performed. That's why Aaron Smith and not Bryn Hall is first choice 9 and why Ma'a kept getting selected.
As the head fucking coach it is your responsibility to get the team to gel.
Agreed. But that requires players who can actually perform at Test level. Whether they are great under coach X or Y or not at SR level is irrelevant.
Are we that dense we can dismiss Razor based on the fact he's won nothing at test level despite his 80% winning record elsewhere? We're willing him to go to another powerhouse first?
How is pointing out Robertson has zero Test experience and Test Rugby is at higher level than Super Rugby dismissing Robertson?
So we select players who can make the step up. How do you know they can make the step up when they haven't played test footy?
You pick players on form and if they can't make the step up to Test level you drop them. What team they come from and who coaches that team, has fuck all to do with ability to perform at Test level.
If the coach keeps selecting players on form and then fail to make the step up, and continues to select players that fail to make the step up, maybe the coach is the issue. Brodie Retalick, Sam Whitelock, Beauden Barrett, Sam Cane, Aaron Smith et al have been in the side for 10 years and are shadows of their former selves. It's not just one or two who aren't performing, it's the entire squad consistently.
Which has bugger-all to do with your theory that because Crusaders players are great at Super level, the only reason they're not world-beaters at Test level is down to Foster.
"How is pointing out Robertson has zero Test experience and Test Rugby is at higher level than Super Rugby dismissing Robertson?"
That's exactly what you're doing. Because he has zero test experience, he cannot be considered for the ABs.
Complete horseshit. I've argued that after Ireland III NZR should have considered replacing Foster with Robertson.
The whole basis of your argument is if the players can't make the step up they should be dropped.
Yes. That's how selecting the best players for a team works.
The issue is the whole squad collectively aren't stepping up.
Which (again) has bugger-all to do with your blaming Foster for the inability of Crusaders players to make the step up to Test level from Super level.
If you want more Crusaders in the AB's or Robertson as Head Coach then fine, but ignoring facts doesn't strengthen your case.
The facts are, Foster has a shit record and players under an 80% winning coach are currently running at 25% over the last 8 tests. I'm not advocating for more Cantabs in the team, again, another fabricated point made up by you. Foster can't get any of the squad to play consistent, cohesive winning rugby. But what you want is to sack the entire squad because they are all playing shit. Now, is it they all can't make the step up or, maybe, just maybe the head coach who was part of the decline of AB rugby under Hansen is without answers and is responsible for getting this team to work and win?
Jeez, that's some mixture of irrelevance. horseshit and putting words into my mouth.
But let's come back to your original point - which is when Crusaders players who excel at Super Rugby level (you mentioned Crusaders players) can't repeat that form at Test Test level, it has fuck all to do Test rugby being at a higher level, but is all down to Foster.
Not only is that argument wrong, it is a mind-blowingly wrong and pretty pointless to debate.
Would it make it easier for your weak heart if I said the Super final making Blues players can't replicate their form at test level? For someone who thinks Robertson should have replaced Foster, you're defending his inability to galvanise the squad into a winning team. You're simply saying the 30 odd players in the squad can't make the step up therefore the entire squad should be dropped. OK, so name your 30 odd replacements who under Foster will make the step up and win the RWC next year.
No, no, no & no.
-
He's such a nice guy, don't fear losing, or your position on the team, I guess
'If you play under fear then you restrict your options'
Ian Foster has suggested that although the All Blacks selectors have made no changes to the starting XV from the side that suffered a historic defeat to Argentina last weekend, that doesn't mean there's no accountability.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Machpants said in Foster:
He's such a nice guy, don't fear losing, or your position on the team, I guess
'If you play under fear then you restrict your options'
Ian Foster has suggested that although the All Blacks selectors have made no changes to the starting XV from the side that suffered a historic defeat to Argentina last weekend, that doesn't mean there's no accountability.
Did you link to the right article?
In the one you posted, the "fear" Foster is talking about fear of losing/things going wrong during the game and how it's cramping the team's on-field play. Actually made sense to me.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
He's such a nice guy, don't fear losing, or your position on the team, I guess
'If you play under fear then you restrict your options'
Ian Foster has suggested that although the All Blacks selectors have made no changes to the starting XV from the side that suffered a historic defeat to Argentina last weekend, that doesn't mean there's no accountability.
Did you link to the right article?
In the one you posted, the "fear" Foster is talking about fear of losing/things going wrong during the game and how it's cramping the team's on-field play. Actually made sense to me.
Yeah fear of losing is what has made the ABs have such high standards over many years, McCaw, Fitzpatrick, etc all talked about the fear of losing is what pushed their excellence. Now it's too scarey so they lose?
-
@Machpants IMO, it isnt really a fear of losing, more the desire to win that seperates those at the top...might seem semantics but I think it is quite a different shift in mindset.
You see it in plenty of sports where teams or individuals start well, but end up trying not to lose the game, rather than keep pressing on to win.
But I do think right now, you get the sense these guys are trying not to lose games rather than trying to win them.
-
@taniwharugby said in Foster:
@Machpants IMO, it isnt really a fear of losing, more the desire to win that seperates those at the top...might seem semantics but I think it is quite a different shift in mindset.
You see it in plenty of sports where teams or individuals start well, but end up trying not to lose the game, rather than keep pressing on to win.
>
But I do think right now, you get the sense these guys are trying not to lose games rather than trying to win them.Maybe, but the fear of losing and tarnishing legacy is gone. I think there is no real care for that, the players just don't know about it. After the 2013 come back all the player's then talked about the loss of the unblemished record versus Irealnd. Now they're like 'oh we've never lost to Ireland/Puma/Scotland before?'
The bolded bit makes me LOL cos that's SMith's accusation against the Puma
-
@Machpants said in Foster:
@taniwharugby said in Foster:
@Machpants IMO, it isnt really a fear of losing, more the desire to win that seperates those at the top...might seem semantics but I think it is quite a different shift in mindset.
You see it in plenty of sports where teams or individuals start well, but end up trying not to lose the game, rather than keep pressing on to win.
>
But I do think right now, you get the sense these guys are trying not to lose games rather than trying to win them.Maybe, but the fear of losing and tarnishing legacy is gone. I think there is no real care for that, the players just don't know about it. After the 2013 come back all the player's then talked about the loss of the unblemished record versus Irealnd. Now they're like 'oh we've never lost to Ireland/Puma/Scotland before?'
The bolded bit makes me LOL cos that's SMith's accusation against the Puma
Oh, I thought it was the All Blacks bestest player and captain in waiting when informed about losing to Ireland in New Zealand.
-
@antipodean said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@taniwharugby said in Foster:
@Machpants IMO, it isnt really a fear of losing, more the desire to win that seperates those at the top...might seem semantics but I think it is quite a different shift in mindset.
You see it in plenty of sports where teams or individuals start well, but end up trying not to lose the game, rather than keep pressing on to win.
>
But I do think right now, you get the sense these guys are trying not to lose games rather than trying to win them.Maybe, but the fear of losing and tarnishing legacy is gone. I think there is no real care for that, the players just don't know about it. After the 2013 come back all the player's then talked about the loss of the unblemished record versus Irealnd. Now they're like 'oh we've never lost to Ireland/Puma/Scotland before?'
The bolded bit makes me LOL cos that's SMith's accusation against the Puma
Oh, I thought it was the All Blacks bestest player and captain in waiting when informed about losing to Ireland in New Zealand.
Totally was the ABs best layer, but he certainly has a bit to learn around the history of the jersey. But that's a team thing, that I think went backwards after Richie.
A bit like letting the forwards wear colured boots
-
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
He's such a nice guy, don't fear losing, or your position on the team, I guess
'If you play under fear then you restrict your options'
Ian Foster has suggested that although the All Blacks selectors have made no changes to the starting XV from the side that suffered a historic defeat to Argentina last weekend, that doesn't mean there's no accountability.
Did you link to the right article?
In the one you posted, the "fear" Foster is talking about fear of losing/things going wrong during the game and how it's cramping the team's on-field play. Actually made sense to me.
Yeah fear of losing is what has made the ABs have such high standards over many years, McCaw, Fitzpatrick, etc all talked about the fear of losing is what pushed their excellence. Now it's too scarey so they lose?
I hate how the fear of failure is now seen as something that can only impact a person negatively - this does not need to be the case. Guys like Fitzy have talked about the fear of failure being a massive motivating factor, the kind of thing that can push you to do extra on and off the pitch in order to win.
It absolutely does my nut in to hear professional athletes playing in one of the most successful teams in history talking about the fear of failure as if it can only be something that inhibits them. Again, this does not need to be the case.
I am sure everyone here has at some time or another their life been motivated to work harder or smarter at something by the fear of failing at it. Personally, not ending up a failed loser in life has been a massive motivating factor in pushing myself in my studies, work, and even on the golf course!
-
@taniwharugby said in Foster:
@Machpants IMO, it isnt really a fear of losing, more the desire to win that seperates those at the top...might seem semantics but I think it is quite a different shift in mindset.
You see it in plenty of sports where teams or individuals start well, but end up trying not to lose the game, rather than keep pressing on to win.
But I do think right now, you get the sense these guys are trying not to lose games rather than trying to win them.
I think it is less that than how each individual and team responds to that fear - are you going to respond to the fear of losing by not even trying? Or are you going to respond to that fear by doing everything in your power to win?
-
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
He's such a nice guy, don't fear losing, or your position on the team, I guess
'If you play under fear then you restrict your options'
Ian Foster has suggested that although the All Blacks selectors have made no changes to the starting XV from the side that suffered a historic defeat to Argentina last weekend, that doesn't mean there's no accountability.
Did you link to the right article?
In the one you posted, the "fear" Foster is talking about fear of losing/things going wrong during the game and how it's cramping the team's on-field play. Actually made sense to me.
Yeah fear of losing is what has made the ABs have such high standards over many years, McCaw, Fitzpatrick, etc all talked about the fear of losing is what pushed their excellence. Now it's too scarey so they lose?
I hate how the fear of failure is now seen as something that can only impact a person negatively - this does not need to be the case.
Guys like Fitzy have talked about the fear of failure being a massive motivating factor, the kind of thing that can push you to do extra on and off the pitch in order to win.True and a good point. But fear of failure combined with a loss of confidence (team or individual) is hugely corrosive as it can become self-fulfilling. Fitzy and co. led teams which had confidence in their ability to win from bad situations - this team hasn't.
It absolutely does my nut in to hear professional athletes playing in one of the most successful teams in history talking about the fear of failure as if it can only be something that inhibits them. Again, this does not need to be the case.
Sadly, in this case I think it is. When you've lost Test after Test and can't bounce back much, you try new things and they don't work out, criticism is coming in from all sides and you keep being told you've soiled the legacy, that makes using the risk of failure as a motivation is pretty damn hard.
I am sure everyone here has at some time or another their life been motivated to work harder or smarter at something by the fear of failing at it. Personally, not ending up a failed loser in life has been a massive motivating factor in pushing myself in my studies, work, and even on the golf course!
Team dynamics are really weird though as the things you mention are controlled collectively and not individually. It can take a little spark to turn things around, or a small error can cause a collective brain-fart.
-
Steve Braunias: The secret diary of Ian Foster
All Blacks coach is doing it his way in today's test - all over again.
-
@Machpants said in Foster:
Steve Braunias: The secret diary of Ian Foster
All Blacks coach is doing it his way in today's test - all over again.
Care to share the joke?
Paywalled link.
-
@Crucial ah sorry
OPINION
MONDAY
Well you know obviously the boys are hurting. The boys are hurting, and when the boys are hurting, that sort of adds up to a lot of hurt. A lot of hurt, I think it's fair to say, is what the boys are feeling. I said to them, "Boys," I said, "you're in a world of pain. You're in a very, very dark place, and there doesn't seem like there's a light at the end of the tunnel. It feels like there's no tomorrow. It feels like there's no point in getting up in the morning. One or two of you may be thinking, 'What's the point of existence?' And others may be experiencing a sort of totally full-on existential crisis."I said those exact words to them in my pre-match pep talk before the Argentina game so imagine how they're feeling now.
TUESDAY
Jacinda Ardern called and said that if I wanted to change the starting XV for the next test on Saturday that she would back me up, adding that I should never be afraid to do a U-turn, that she did it all the time and that it always worked wonders with the public.
I thanked her for the advice but told her that listening to the public was a sign of weakness, and losing on my own terms was a sign of strength.WEDNESDAY
Okay, so I guess the message is we have been pretty ruthless and hard on ourselves behind the scenes. Ruthless, and hard on ourselves, and very, very critical. I said to the boys, "Boys," I said, "you're actually pretty useless, some of you, aren't you? I don't know how you can look at yourself in the mirror. Dear oh dear. What a shower. Just not good enough, really. At the end of the day, nowhere near good enough. The blame lies fairly and squarely at your feet."One of the boys had a go at me but I don't stand for criticism. It's out of line.
THURSDAY
Christopher Luxon called and said he wouldn't rule out working with me in a National-led government.I thanked him for his call but told him that my job was a lot safer than his.
FRIDAY
For those who want blood, I guess we haven't given it, have we? But if you play under fear, you restrict your options, you restrict your thinking. And what actually happens is that you just don't get the game going, the way you want to do it.But we actually believe in some things that we're working on now.
It's hard work when the team is not sort of at 100 per cent every week. But I have been there when it is, and I know how much experience you need to get to that point and how much hard work and how sort of settled the team needs to be.
And we think the best way to build the confidence in those key pressure moments is to put the guys out there that have just been through it, have felt it. And now we've talked about some different solutions. So we're backing that by fielding the same starting XV as last Saturday.
Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results. But Einstein didn't play rugby and if there's one thing the public has come to know about me in my reign as All Blacks coach, I'm no Einstein.
-
@Machpants what an utter crap article.
