Foster, Robertson etc
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@reprobate said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
How dare someone leave people open to criticism in public eh Steve? Best you criticise them in public for that.
Your closed doors is how we got Foster in the first place. The hiring process was abysmal, ruled out all the good options deliberately so your mate could get the job. And the organisation, having previously wheeled out bullshit like 'coaches must have international experience' when it suited, then pick a guy without any head coach success in NZ, let alone inernationally.
Zero integrity.Yeah, it's ridiculous for Hansen say Foster's a good coach and call out some of the online abuse when everyone knows Foster's rubbish and deserves everything he gets, isn't it? Hansen's obviously clueless and it's not as if he's had any decent experience or success at international level so he's best ignored.
And as for Mo'unga praising Foster, what would he know about coaching quality? Has he ever been coached by anyone decent?
An alternate view is these guys might actually have more insight into the current problems than most other people - including rugby hacks - and the current problems in NZ Rugby might run a wee bit deeper than the coaching skills of one bloke. Bit bloody inconvenient, if that is the case, eh?
Didn't say any of that, but keep up your efforts for the broken record award mate.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Frank said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@reprobate said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
How dare someone leave people open to criticism in public eh Steve? Best you criticise them in public for that.
Your closed doors is how we got Foster in the first place. The hiring process was abysmal, ruled out all the good options deliberately so your mate could get the job. And the organisation, having previously wheeled out bullshit like 'coaches must have international experience' when it suited, then pick a guy without any head coach success in NZ, let alone inernationally.
Zero integrity.Yeah, it's ridiculous for Hansen say Foster's a good coach and call out some of the online abuse when everyone knows Foster's rubbish and deserves everything he gets, isn't it? Hansen's obviously clueless and it's not as if he's had any decent experience or success at international level so he's best ignored.
And as for Mo'unga praising Foster, what would he know about coaching quality? Has he ever been coached by anyone decent?
An alternate view is these guys might actually have more insight into the current problems than most other people - including rugby hacks - and the current problems in NZ Rugby might run a wee bit deeper than the coaching skills of one bloke. Bit bloody inconvenient, if that is the case, eh?
There are deeper problems, but getting rid of Foster is important. Both can be true.
It's of paramount important to some people. But if Foster's the problem, then what do you do when the solution you put in place doesn't work? Shrug your shoulders and say at least we tried something?
Sounds more like an argument about Brexit.
Oh let's leave the EU! Ok, and go to what, exactly? Oh the Tories will work everything out. Ok!On the ABs, what can people do apart from demand player changes or coaching changes?
And of these two options how many untested star players do we have left?
Nobody seems to think there is one magical player not selected who will dramatically change the team's fortunes and I have not seen here a cogent and plausible reason we can replace the NZR. Go ahead, suggest.When you unpick the "Foster must go" argument and ask how many Tests you'd give a Foster-replacement to improve things (like the win percentage) before he too gets sacked, things get a bit more vague and/or complicated for some reason.
Really can't think why if the quality of the coach is a key problem.That is not unpicking, that is avoiding the real question, on what criteria was his contract extended? What are the KPIs that he is apparently hitting? He selected his assistant coaches, if the NZR don't think 2 (or 3?) performed, how is that not a reflection on his judgement?
So, false equivalence. Coach can be crap AND people can not want to give clear criteria, because they want to vent and be subjective!
OTOH, posters here have given criteria, the record % loss percentage, the records for loses in general, the supposedly weaker teams we played against, that we struggled against, and the slide in world rankings.
The argument against Foster is strong, his terrible win-loss record and the clear performance drop of his players and the quality of his excuses, or lack thereof, the only coach to face COVID-related issues, huh?
People don't set criteria because they want to complain and feel powerless to change things. They can still set criteria.Here is an easy one, a coaching record better than Foster's.
Loss number seven under his watch came after just 24 tests, a rapid rate compared to his predecessor, Sir Steve Hansen. It took 89 tests for Hansen to suffer seven losses, 53 for Sir Graham Henry, and 35 for John Hart.criteria:
So, not losing 7 tests in 24 overall would be a start. So close to a 75% average after 2 years. Too difficult?
Here is an easier one: not losing a series at home to a country we never lost a series at home before could be another one. OUT!
PLUS: A two year contract with clear KPI the public also know about. KPI not met, OUT!
AND: Responsibility for assistant coach selection and performance. If you lose half your assistant coaching team, for example. OUT! -
@nostrildamus said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@stodders when did Wayne Smith leave ABs ? October 2017? It can take a while for a good team to slide ...
Yep. Smith was brilliant at helping forge the right culture within the team.
When McCaw and Carter left and Nonu, Smith, Mealamu to an extent, some of the high standards they set didn't seem to be continued, or they dropped slightly within the team. But McCaw's leadership was all about training properly, preparing properly, executing properly.
Read's style of captaincy was a bit more laissez faire for me. McCaw wasn't a friend to the players (or didn't appear to be from the outside). He seemed more aloof. Read was more about the camaraderie and more in tune emotionally with the playing group.
Read was a brilliant deputy to McCaw. He led through deed. When he became Captain, I got the feeling that the standards set by McCaw were not maintained because Read wanted to do things his own way. Hansen didn't fill the gap that the senior leadership had been filling, and so over time standards eroded. But a winning habit is hard to break, and so the team won more than they possibly should have post-2015.
But once the losses began and doubts crept in, the drive for excellence and maintaining standards that was demanded by McCaw wasn't fully there anymore. The culture had morphed and didn't support it. And so, we are where we are at now. The players are still good enough, but the culture isn't conducive to get high quality performances out on a consistent basis.
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Frank said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@reprobate said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
How dare someone leave people open to criticism in public eh Steve? Best you criticise them in public for that.
Your closed doors is how we got Foster in the first place. The hiring process was abysmal, ruled out all the good options deliberately so your mate could get the job. And the organisation, having previously wheeled out bullshit like 'coaches must have international experience' when it suited, then pick a guy without any head coach success in NZ, let alone inernationally.
Zero integrity.Yeah, it's ridiculous for Hansen say Foster's a good coach and call out some of the online abuse when everyone knows Foster's rubbish and deserves everything he gets, isn't it? Hansen's obviously clueless and it's not as if he's had any decent experience or success at international level so he's best ignored.
And as for Mo'unga praising Foster, what would he know about coaching quality? Has he ever been coached by anyone decent?
An alternate view is these guys might actually have more insight into the current problems than most other people - including rugby hacks - and the current problems in NZ Rugby might run a wee bit deeper than the coaching skills of one bloke. Bit bloody inconvenient, if that is the case, eh?
There are deeper problems, but getting rid of Foster is important. Both can be true.
It's of paramount important to some people. But if Foster's the problem, then what do you do when the solution you put in place doesn't work? Shrug your shoulders and say at least we tried something?
Sounds more like an argument about Brexit.
Oh let's leave the EU! Ok, and go to what, exactly? Oh the Tories will work everything out. Ok!On the ABs, what can people do apart from demand player changes or coaching changes?
And of these two options how many untested star players do we have left?
Nobody seems to think there is one magical player not selected who will dramatically change the team's fortunes and I have not seen here a cogent and plausible reason we can replace the NZR. Go ahead, suggest.When you unpick the "Foster must go" argument and ask how many Tests you'd give a Foster-replacement to improve things (like the win percentage) before he too gets sacked, things get a bit more vague and/or complicated for some reason.
Really can't think why if the quality of the coach is a key problem.That is not unpicking, that is avoiding the real question, on what criteria was his contract extended? What are the KPIs that he is apparently hitting? He selected his assistant coaches, if the NZR don't think 2 (or 3?) performed, how is that not a reflection on his judgement?
So, false equivalence. Coach can be crap AND people can not want to give clear criteria, because they want to vent and be subjective!
OTOH, posters here have given criteria, the record % loss percentage, the records for loses in general, the supposedly weaker teams we played against, that we struggled against, and the slide in world rankings.
The argument against Foster is strong, his terrible win-loss record and the clear performance drop of his players and the quality of his excuses, or lack thereof, the only coach to face COVID-related issues, huh?
People don't set criteria because they want to complain and feel powerless to change things. They can still set criteria.Here is an easy one, a coaching record better than Foster's.
Loss number seven under his watch came after just 24 tests, a rapid rate compared to his predecessor, Sir Steve Hansen. It took 89 tests for Hansen to suffer seven losses, 53 for Sir Graham Henry, and 35 for John Hart.criteria:
So, not losing 7 tests in 24 overall would be a start. So close to a 75% average after 2 years. Too difficult?
Here is an easier one: not losing a series at home to a country we never lost a series at home before could be another one. OUT!
PLUS: A two year contract with clear KPI the public also know about. KPI not met, OUT!
AND: Responsibility for assistant coach selection and performance. If you lose half your assistant coaching team, for example. OUT!Not to make this about Brexit, but just watch the EU over the next couple of years. It is already fracturing as nations with different needs pull in different directions.
Similar situation with various stakeholders of NZ rugby
-
@stodders said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Frank said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@reprobate said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
How dare someone leave people open to criticism in public eh Steve? Best you criticise them in public for that.
Your closed doors is how we got Foster in the first place. The hiring process was abysmal, ruled out all the good options deliberately so your mate could get the job. And the organisation, having previously wheeled out bullshit like 'coaches must have international experience' when it suited, then pick a guy without any head coach success in NZ, let alone inernationally.
Zero integrity.Yeah, it's ridiculous for Hansen say Foster's a good coach and call out some of the online abuse when everyone knows Foster's rubbish and deserves everything he gets, isn't it? Hansen's obviously clueless and it's not as if he's had any decent experience or success at international level so he's best ignored.
And as for Mo'unga praising Foster, what would he know about coaching quality? Has he ever been coached by anyone decent?
An alternate view is these guys might actually have more insight into the current problems than most other people - including rugby hacks - and the current problems in NZ Rugby might run a wee bit deeper than the coaching skills of one bloke. Bit bloody inconvenient, if that is the case, eh?
There are deeper problems, but getting rid of Foster is important. Both can be true.
It's of paramount important to some people. But if Foster's the problem, then what do you do when the solution you put in place doesn't work? Shrug your shoulders and say at least we tried something?
When you unpick the "Foster must go" argument and ask how many Tests you'd give a Foster-replacement to improve things (like the win percentage) before he too gets sacked, things get a bit more vague and/or complicated for some reason. Really can't think why if the quality of the coach is a key problem.
It will be interesting to see what effect, if any, Foster taking over the backs/attack remit has on the team. By all accounts, those in the 2015 team were very complimentary about him when he was an assistant coach and the ABs during 2015 to 2019 weren't bad at attacking I seem to recall.
Maybe some of the load will be lifted from him and he can concentrate on a specific role. Not all coaches make good head coaches.
Well, I hope so. But unless there's some improvement in the RC & EOYT, NZR needs to put some contingency plans into action and change out the coaching team.
-
@reprobate said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@reprobate said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
How dare someone leave people open to criticism in public eh Steve? Best you criticise them in public for that.
Your closed doors is how we got Foster in the first place. The hiring process was abysmal, ruled out all the good options deliberately so your mate could get the job. And the organisation, having previously wheeled out bullshit like 'coaches must have international experience' when it suited, then pick a guy without any head coach success in NZ, let alone inernationally.
Zero integrity.Yeah, it's ridiculous for Hansen say Foster's a good coach and call out some of the online abuse when everyone knows Foster's rubbish and deserves everything he gets, isn't it? Hansen's obviously clueless and it's not as if he's had any decent experience or success at international level so he's best ignored.
And as for Mo'unga praising Foster, what would he know about coaching quality? Has he ever been coached by anyone decent?
An alternate view is these guys might actually have more insight into the current problems than most other people - including rugby hacks - and the current problems in NZ Rugby might run a wee bit deeper than the coaching skills of one bloke. Bit bloody inconvenient, if that is the case, eh?
Didn't say any of that
How dare someone leave people open to criticism in public eh Steve? Best you criticise them in public for that.
Oh sorry, I though you were referring to Hansen. Must have been another "Steve". Who were you referring to?
-
@Billy-Tell Mitch was a monumental bellend but he won two Tri-Nations and brought back the Bled. He also unearthed a wealth of talent, many of whom when on to win World Cups.
-
@taniwharugby We've had those issues since the EOYT 2016.
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
Sounds more like an argument about Brexit.
Oh let's leave the EU! Ok, and go to what, exactly? Oh the Tories will work everything out. Ok!Seriously?
On the ABs, what can people do apart from demand player changes or coaching changes?
Apply some clear-headed thinking for a start. At the moment much of the comment in the media is akin to some sort of emotional witch-hunt.
That is not unpicking, that is avoiding the real question, on what criteria was his contract extended? What are the KPIs that he is apparently hitting? He selected his assistant coaches, if the NZR don't think 2 (or 3?) performed, how is that not a reflection on his judgement?
That's not the real question in the real world, not even remotely. You are looking into what happened in the past when we need to ask how we improve things going forward. The real question is would a new coach do any better and how long do we give him to prove himself & what happens if there's no improvement. What do we do then?
So, not losing 7 tests in 24 overall would be a start. So close to a 75% average after 2 years. Too difficult?
Which is what Foster pretty much achieved in his first 2 years before he was re-appointed. What happens if the new bloke does the same? Sack him, after he loses 4/5 games like people want Foster sacked, or keep him until the end of his contract to give him a chance of hitting the 75% target?
Here is an easier one: not losing a series at home to a country we never lost a series at home before could be another one. OUT!
Unworkable. If Foster had gone after the poor 2021 EOYT results and, say, Robertson had taken over and lost to Ireland in his first 2 tests in charge, Robertson would be sacked after 2 Tests and you'd have to get (yet) another coach in to do the 3rd Test.
AND: Responsibility for assistant coach selection and performance. If you lose half your assistant coaching team, for example. OUT!
And by doing that you'd actually take away any responsibility for assistant coach selection and performance. If his assistants were not performing and he wanted to cut them loose to improve things, he'd have a disincentive to do that as he'd be given the sack for not keeping his assistants. Worse position than we are in now.
-
@stodders Hansen still hadn't played his best side until the SF. Everything was built around mobile forwards and SBW. Most of which hadn't played as a unit over a good chunk of time because SH kept changing it. I mean, Ryan Crotty and ALB were doing ok and could have been better with more time and then he dumps Bender. He had lost the plot completely by 2019 which started EOYT 2016.
-
@Joan-Town-Jones said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Billy-Tell Mitch was a monumental bellend but he won two Tri-Nations and brought back the Bled. He also unearthed a wealth of talent, many of whom when on to win World Cups.
He was a good coach but insufferable with that condescending “journey” BS. He also probably cost himself a RWC with the mehrtens/Cullen/Umaga treatment.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Joan-Town-Jones said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Billy-Tell Mitch was a monumental bellend but he won two Tri-Nations and brought back the Bled. He also unearthed a wealth of talent, many of whom when on to win World Cups.
He was a good coach but insufferable with that condescending “journey” BS. He also probably cost himself a RWC with the mehrtens/Cullen/Umaga treatment.
Cueball, whilst being a very knowledgeable guy rugby wise and possesses some serious coaching abilities, has been toxic in virtually every coaching environment he’s been in.
How many coaching gigs has he been sidelined from?
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
When you unpick the "Foster must go" argument and ask how many Tests you'd give a Foster-replacement to improve things (like the win percentage) before he too gets sacked, things get a bit more vague and/or complicated for some reason. Really can't think why if the quality of the coach is a key problem.
You asked this on the other thread, and it's a great challenge.
The consensus was it's not just the losing, but the way we're losing. We seem miles behind other nations, particularly England France Ireland in our attacking and defensive patterns. Our players no longer seem to be better than the opposition at the core skills and vision.
So, a better record, and/or visible improvements in the way we play.
If Foster had the team playing well and we lost to a better side, most folk would accept that as steps on the journey. Right now we're seeing players seem to get worse in the AB environment; muddled thinking, poor skills, woeful kicking, lack of clarity of action and gameplan, and slow speed of thought.
-
@nzzp said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
When you unpick the "Foster must go" argument and ask how many Tests you'd give a Foster-replacement to improve things (like the win percentage) before he too gets sacked, things get a bit more vague and/or complicated for some reason. Really can't think why if the quality of the coach is a key problem.
You asked this on the other thread, and it's a great challenge.
The consensus was it's not just the losing, but the way we're losing. We seem miles behind other nations, particularly England France Ireland in our attacking and defensive patterns. Our players no longer seem to be better than the opposition at the core skills and vision.
So, a better record, and/or visible improvements in the way we play.
If Foster had the team playing well and we lost to a better side, most folk would accept that as steps on the journey. Right now we're seeing players seem to get worse in the AB environment; muddled thinking, poor skills, woeful kicking, lack of clarity of action and gameplan, and slow speed of thought.
Joe Rocks, translated from French interview
Moreover, the attack game is not varied enough and faced with these increasingly better-organised defences, these movements, which worked until now, no longer work
There's not any innovation, that's totally on the coach. We lose cos the team is based on X factor and individual brilliance, and is not enough. We actually need to work for victory. The excellent Nick Bishop has any analysis on Rugby Pass about the midfield, and the crap we see now. Let's play a fullback and a wing in the midfield, cos X factor, yeah that'll work. And that's just one area of muddled X factor thinking of many.
Until foster is gone, the ABs are in a tactics free fall.
For the last six years, New Zealand have increasingly reached towards ‘X-factor’, rather than players steeped in the technical and physical demands of play at numbers 10, 12 and 13
Interesting that he is one of the few press that agree with the majority opinion here, is not just foster, but late Hansen as well
-
@Machpants said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@nzzp said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
When you unpick the "Foster must go" argument and ask how many Tests you'd give a Foster-replacement to improve things (like the win percentage) before he too gets sacked, things get a bit more vague and/or complicated for some reason. Really can't think why if the quality of the coach is a key problem.
You asked this on the other thread, and it's a great challenge.
The consensus was it's not just the losing, but the way we're losing. We seem miles behind other nations, particularly England France Ireland in our attacking and defensive patterns. Our players no longer seem to be better than the opposition at the core skills and vision.
So, a better record, and/or visible improvements in the way we play.
If Foster had the team playing well and we lost to a better side, most folk would accept that as steps on the journey. Right now we're seeing players seem to get worse in the AB environment; muddled thinking, poor skills, woeful kicking, lack of clarity of action and gameplan, and slow speed of thought.
Joe Rocks, translated from French interview
Moreover, the attack game is not varied enough and faced with these increasingly better-organised defences, these movements, which worked until now, no longer work
There's not any innovation, that's totally on the coach. We lose cos the team is based on X factor and individual brilliance, and is not enough. We actually need to work for victory. The excellent Nick Bishop has any analysis on Rugby Pass about the midfield, and the crap we see now. Let's play a fullback and a wing in the midfield, cos X factor, yeah that'll work. And that's just one area of muddled X factor thinking of many.
Until foster is gone, the ABs are in a tactics free fall.
For the last six years, New Zealand have increasingly reached towards ‘X-factor’, rather than players steeped in the technical and physical demands of play at numbers 10, 12 and 13
Interesting that he is one of the few press that agree with the majority opinion here, is not just foster, but late Hansen as well
In fairness a good number of people on this forum wanted rieko at 13. We don’t have a lot of other options TBH with the injuries to ALB and JG. I’m going to wait & see how the next 2 tests go.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Machpants said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@nzzp said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
When you unpick the "Foster must go" argument and ask how many Tests you'd give a Foster-replacement to improve things (like the win percentage) before he too gets sacked, things get a bit more vague and/or complicated for some reason. Really can't think why if the quality of the coach is a key problem.
You asked this on the other thread, and it's a great challenge.
The consensus was it's not just the losing, but the way we're losing. We seem miles behind other nations, particularly England France Ireland in our attacking and defensive patterns. Our players no longer seem to be better than the opposition at the core skills and vision.
So, a better record, and/or visible improvements in the way we play.
If Foster had the team playing well and we lost to a better side, most folk would accept that as steps on the journey. Right now we're seeing players seem to get worse in the AB environment; muddled thinking, poor skills, woeful kicking, lack of clarity of action and gameplan, and slow speed of thought.
Joe Rocks, translated from French interview
Moreover, the attack game is not varied enough and faced with these increasingly better-organised defences, these movements, which worked until now, no longer work
There's not any innovation, that's totally on the coach. We lose cos the team is based on X factor and individual brilliance, and is not enough. We actually need to work for victory. The excellent Nick Bishop has any analysis on Rugby Pass about the midfield, and the crap we see now. Let's play a fullback and a wing in the midfield, cos X factor, yeah that'll work. And that's just one area of muddled X factor thinking of many.
Until foster is gone, the ABs are in a tactics free fall.
For the last six years, New Zealand have increasingly reached towards ‘X-factor’, rather than players steeped in the technical and physical demands of play at numbers 10, 12 and 13
Interesting that he is one of the few press that agree with the majority opinion here, is not just foster, but late Hansen as well
In fairness a good number of people on this forum wanted rieko at 13. We don’t have a lot of other options TBH with the injuries to ALB and JG. I’m going to wait & see how the next 2 tests go.
I wanted Jack for the must win third, but injuries got in the way. Rieko is deadly on the wing, so why not play him there?
-
@nzzp said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
When you unpick the "Foster must go" argument and ask how many Tests you'd give a Foster-replacement to improve things (like the win percentage) before he too gets sacked, things get a bit more vague and/or complicated for some reason. Really can't think why if the quality of the coach is a key problem.
You asked this on the other thread, and it's a great challenge.
The consensus was it's not just the losing, but the way we're losing. We seem miles behind other nations, particularly England France Ireland in our attacking and defensive patterns. Our players no longer seem to be better than the opposition at the core skills and vision.
So, a better record, and/or visible improvements in the way we play.
If Foster had the team playing well and we lost to a better side, most folk would accept that as steps on the journey. Right now we're seeing players seem to get worse in the AB environment; muddled thinking, poor skills, woeful kicking, lack of clarity of action and gameplan, and slow speed of thought.
I agree 100%. Just think that a lot of those problems run deeper than just the coaching staff and they need addressing with equal or greater priority. And I'd add that sacking the coaching staff without addressing those problems runs a real risk of making the situation actually worse.
Perhaps Hansen was on the money or not with his comments on NZR, but he raised some good points
-
@Billy-Tell said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Machpants said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@nzzp said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
When you unpick the "Foster must go" argument and ask how many Tests you'd give a Foster-replacement to improve things (like the win percentage) before he too gets sacked, things get a bit more vague and/or complicated for some reason. Really can't think why if the quality of the coach is a key problem.
You asked this on the other thread, and it's a great challenge.
The consensus was it's not just the losing, but the way we're losing. We seem miles behind other nations, particularly England France Ireland in our attacking and defensive patterns. Our players no longer seem to be better than the opposition at the core skills and vision.
So, a better record, and/or visible improvements in the way we play.
If Foster had the team playing well and we lost to a better side, most folk would accept that as steps on the journey. Right now we're seeing players seem to get worse in the AB environment; muddled thinking, poor skills, woeful kicking, lack of clarity of action and gameplan, and slow speed of thought.
Joe Rocks, translated from French interview
Moreover, the attack game is not varied enough and faced with these increasingly better-organised defences, these movements, which worked until now, no longer work
There's not any innovation, that's totally on the coach. We lose cos the team is based on X factor and individual brilliance, and is not enough. We actually need to work for victory. The excellent Nick Bishop has any analysis on Rugby Pass about the midfield, and the crap we see now. Let's play a fullback and a wing in the midfield, cos X factor, yeah that'll work. And that's just one area of muddled X factor thinking of many.
Until foster is gone, the ABs are in a tactics free fall.
For the last six years, New Zealand have increasingly reached towards ‘X-factor’, rather than players steeped in the technical and physical demands of play at numbers 10, 12 and 13
Interesting that he is one of the few press that agree with the majority opinion here, is not just foster, but late Hansen as well
In fairness a good number of people on this forum wanted rieko at 13. We don’t have a lot of other options TBH with the injuries to ALB and JG. I’m going to wait & see how the next 2 tests go.
He's great on attack, but still rubbish in defence. System defence, and tackling/marking etc. His individual defence is awesome, but he's often not in the right place to use that.
-
@Victor-Meldrew well given the issues showed signs in 2016 and really started bedding in circa 2017/2018, I think the fact none of the coaching team responded to this at the time is a big part of the problem...Maybe Fozzie is a good coach, but the ingrained issues that have been festering for near on 5 years now are now a major issue, but no one did anything about it, until now (Hansen and his team, that included Foster, and then Foster and his team)
It should be on them to identify issues in our game at the top, which will be there at Super and start working with Super coaches to fix these...this isnt on NZR, they are responsible for a completely separate pile of shit!
