@stodders said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:

I'll play devil's advocate here:

Foster's time as head coach with the Chiefs wasn't great. But people can develop and improve if they show that they can learn from past mistakes.

People defending Foster always say this, but it isn't true. Poor coaches never turn into good coaches.

By the time Foster left the Chiefs he had been coaching for well over a decade. If he wasn't good by then, he never was going to be. He showed no upward path then, yet we are meant to believe that he would start showing one twenty years into his career? That is the height of optimism.

While people do learn from past mistakes, they also carry over old ideas and ways from the past that rapidly get out of date. Once you get to a certain amount of experience, the new things you learn generally don't cancel out all the old baggage that you carry.

This has been studied in various fields. Teachers, for example, are best after eight years experience, regardless of how old they were when they started. After that time they generally get worse with added experience.

It's why one of the best things a person who is a bit jaded can do is do something else, even if only for a short while.

Foster is doing exactly what the nay-sayers predicted -- picking favourites he won't drop, having fantastic performances followed by inexplicably bad ones, fielding teams with game plans that are out of date. That's who he is, and more experience is not going to change that.

Can you persuade me by giving examples of coaches who got better after more than a dozen years on the job? They are few and far between. Even great coaches tend to fade with age, rather than get better, which is also contrary to the "you get better with experience" line.

NZ Rugby got cocky. Like the great Auckland run of the 90's, then the great Crusaders run when they persisted with Blackadder, they actually believed that their systems were more important than the people they hired. As long as the man involved knew the system, then he would get results, because the system was so awesome. Someone like Robertson who was obviously going to change the system was actively avoided.

Foster was hired not because he was the best coach, and they knew that, but because he would continue the system. Turns out that their system always depended on having the best coaches after all.

So, as we saw with Blackadder and the Crusaders, a slip in results did not lead to a change in coach. They simply knew the system would win out, so they persisted for eight years of mediocrity. Luckily for them the next coach was from the system too, but good, so they started winning again. They are going to be baffled in Crusader land when the system doesn't work when he goes. The Blues were less lucky. They could not get their heads around why their system didn't give them championships once Graham Henry left. It turns out their much vaunted system required having the best coach, after all. (They didn't even get it once Henry returned and gave them one more championship, they were that pig-headed about it.)

The Chiefs persisted with eight years of Foster. The Crusaders with eight years of Blackadder. The Blues decades of uselessness. That NZ Rugby will come to their senses and realise that the coach is the problem is still some four years away. If we are lucky.

@taniwharugby said in NH ditch Junior rep rugby teams...:

I struggle to understand the drivers, how is removing that representative opportunity for the better quality kids going to enhance their enjoyment of the game?

My experience is that junior rep rugby doesn't target the better kids, so I have quite a lot of sympathy for the idea. Junior reps are the kids that have played the longest and/or are the earlier developers and/or play for the best teams and coaches. As a kid who was at the wrong end of the year, I thought I was much worse at rugby than I was, whereas it was merely that I was close to 11 when the "stars" were almost 13. At that age it's a huge matter.

As a guy who has seen literally thousands of kids flow through from junior rep rugby into secondary school rugby, I don't see any link between who is good at 18 and who is good at 12. I've seen so many kids come into school all pumped up because they played Roller Mills or such, only to find that they were merely early developers. Meanwhile some quiet kid who develops late, but has a good work ethic, is a much better player. Our school stopped selecting teams based on previous rep experience and went with who trained harder.

There's quite a few on this site that argue even 1st XV rugby continues the practice of merely selecting the biggest players, rather than the most skillful, which is why Auckland can't convert its massive base into provincial dominance.

And the worst part of the rep system is that it ingrains any selections based on age/size etc. Those kids get to play more and get the best coaches. Meanwhile some late developer gets only half the rugby and less good coaching.

This is not to say that NH is right. Sometimes a bad system is better than no system. I simply do not think that being selected as a rep, aged 11, is any guide to anything much.

Much guess will be that it will have zero long term effect on NH rugby.

@canefan said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):

Apart from the sitter he dropped in Lions III I thought he was busy and enthusiastic and generally played quite well

"Busy and enthusiastic" are what we say about boys in teams when, actually, they are a little bit shit.

@mariner4life said in Foster must go:

I'm just throwing it out there, maybe, just maybe, we lose to Ireland because they have better players than us now. And we, the NZ rugby fan, refuse to believe it because it has never been so.

Foster must be one of the most unlucky bastards ever to live then.

He must have had crap players at the Chiefs, only for Rennie to get lucky and have brilliant ones just as he left.

And then he takes a winning AB side, albeit with a couple of issues, and all the players turn to custard just at the same time! Players who lead Super sides well, only to be headless chooks when playing for him.

Rennie actually has that issue. But his sides still have some structure, whether winning or losing. The ABs don't even know what they are doing half the time.

Foster has done with the ABs exactly what those who watched the Chiefs carefully said would happen. We said he would have favourites that he would not drop, that his selections otherwise would be baffling, that his "game plan" is basically to spread it wide and hope. And worst of all, his teams would be poorly prepared mentally . They weren't lucky guesses.

@No-Quarter said in Bledisoe #1:

The fact that they’ve picked a team that so many on the Fern wanted makes me nervous. As a collective we have a strong proven record of not having a fucking clue what we are talking about.

You say that. And yet when I have to listen to the shit spouted at work about rugby I think fondly of Fern wisdom.

We might always be wrong. But not half as wrong as most fans.

@Dan54 said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:

Geez reprobate, calm down mate, lol.

He's calm compared to what I want to type!

You win some, you lose some. But when you lose when you used to win, you need to examine what caused it. And Foster simply does not do that. That angers me. A quiet, steaming anger that has been building since he was appointed.

He is leader of one of the best professional teams/franchises on the planet. You expect a fully professional attitude from him. Yet nothing is his fault, even when a disaster unfolds in front of his eyes. He doesn't do what he expects his players to do -- look at their game, see the issues and fix them.

It's not that we are average. It's that nothing is changing, and so we see the same average things time and time again.

@no-quarter said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:

@hooroo said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:

@duluth said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:

@hooroo

Yes, that did seem to help

One year was it?

Because I was told to judge Tana after three years.. we're almost at three years now.. now I'm told Tana should get another 2 years added to his contract

The strange thing is I can't find a Blues fan that wants that

Yes and also Razor did it in his first year too!

Boyd got the Canes a home final in his first year, then won the thing the next year. Fair bit of evidence to suggest a quality coach can make a big difference.

I think the evidence the coach makes a big difference is overwhelming.

I did a check and iirc anyone who won a Super Rugby title did it in their first three years, and for most the turn-around was immediately obvious. McKenzie at the Reds, the most dramatic.

Foster managed a final in his fifth? year, and the team was crap the next, showing it was fluke.

Even great coaches tended to get worse over time, rather than better. (I suspect they don't get worse, just that the opposition know what to expect, so the results slip a bit.)

There is zero chance, based on previous history, that Tana can turn the ship around.

The Chiefs kept hoping Foster would deliver, the Crusaders kept hoping Blackadder would. They didn't, and neither will Tana.

@victor-meldrew said in All Blacks v Ireland, 2021 NH Tour:

@mofitzy_ said in All Blacks v Ireland, 2021 NH Tour:

@victor-meldrew
Players of a known quantity are underperforming, new players don't cut the mustard. That's on the coach.

Or the players just aren't there? The player pool at 9 isn't exactly overflowing and that's not down to Foster

Except it is. Robertson can win Super Trophies with Drummond -- who isn't even in the reckoning for the ABs. Brad Weber can play some amazing rugby, with the right game plan. (I loathe TJP with a passion, and can't way to see the back of him, but that's more about what a tool he is as a person.)

Robertson's hardly a lone exception. We can all cite coaches who just seem to get the best out of players. And other coaches who turn gold into, um, not gold.

It's no good saying that NZ isn't producing the quality of players we used to, when our Super and provincial teams are streaks ahead of everyone else. And when our rejects are starting players for other countries.

Our game plan seems to be, kick it as soon as you get it except in their 22, and hope to score from individual brilliance. It's a shit plan, and it deserves what it got last night. It isn't like Beauden was carving up when he was on, he kicked it even more than Mo'unga. It has to be the plan, not the players.

I don't get the love for Blackadder. Sure he's busy, but Papalii is the same but more accurate.

They will start Cane and Savea for certain. Then someone big to carry the ball, so Ioane or Sotutu. Papalii and Barrett as reserves.

Starting Cane, Savea and Blackadder would be ... interesting. But not in a good way.

@Bones said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:

@Frank said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:

I'd like to hear from Foster's most ardent defenders (Crucial you're so quiet mate) as to why he should stay on or what the Fern is missing?

Foster doesn't have defenders. There's just people that don't bitch and moan about the same old shit time and again and actually try and come up with something coherent.

Foster does have defenders. The NZRU for one. The media aren't laying into him half as much as they should be. It is still "The All Blacks need to do this ..." and "the All Blacks need to do that ..." rather than pointing the finger solidly at him.

I try to keep my rants about him to less than one a month, but how is the position that he is the real problem, and should go, not "coherent"?

I said it about him when he was Chiefs coach. I said it about Blackadder after a couple of years with the Crusaders too. At a certain point it becomes clear that a good team is being held back. After that point no amount of analysis helps.

@Machpants said in Foster:

@taniwharugby said in Foster:

@Bones said in Foster:

Well that's that then. Lock the thread.

So all Sam is saying is that Gats was right, anyone could coach the ABs!

Foster (pro era) and McDonald have proven that is a fallacy.

Ireland can't beat us for 100 years, then suddenly go to better than 50% and the coach (and systems behind them) don't matter? Pull the other one!

The Irish used to play us with total passion, 100% commitment, and lose. Now they are far more controlled, less passionate, and win.

Coaching is a major part of any modern team. If you include the wider picture -- selections, training in the off season, fitness, mental preparation etc -- I would suggest it is at least as important as the players.

@Higgins said in Springboks v All Blacks I:

@ACT-Crusader said in Springboks v All Blacks I:

@No-Quarter I just watching through the game again and I think you are being a little tricky with the truth. For example in the 20-30 minute period Beaudie received the ball as 1st receiver at either set piece or phase play only 3 times. Plenty of other players getting it at first receiver.

Beaudie is either in the second line or out the back during that period also.

He did some good things but he made some poor errors last night even with good ball. This is not even about pushing Mo’unga or any other player, but Beaudie hasn’t looked in control for a while and it sucks because he’s been a great player to watch. Ever since he was a rookie he’s been a high risk high reward player, but he learned to do that with control and and patience. He hasn’t played with control for a while now.

Dare we say it - ever since he went to Japan.

He's never been a good 10. He's a brilliant fullback (the only really good thing he did today, he did when marking at the back). These days he doesn't even shine very much at Super level.

We won't get any better until he is gone. I know it is horrible for a guy that has such individual talent, but he's not an international 10.

Our backline has never run smoothly with him in charge. Oh, we sometimes have flashes of individual brilliance, but never one that functions as a unit.

If Robertson comes in and does like Rennie did with the Chiefs, there may be some red faces around here.

Sure he might not be able to turn the ABs around.

But some of the people here seem to regard that as also meaning he won't. Like they actually want him not to do so.

McCaw pushed out a very good, experienced, 7. It seemed bizarre at the time, but went on to be the right decision.

Frizzell can't even get a nailed in spot in a side searching for the right 6.

St John's Hamilton beat St Pauls 46 -10.

I thought it was quite flattering to SJ, but they were much more ruthless on attack.

@antipodean said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:

Herein lies the conundrum; if he wins everything from now, why wouldn't you keep him in the job?

Yeah, and I might win Lotto. (I don't buy tickets, btw.)

Foster might win the RWC, but there's no chance we win everything up to that point.

He will likely have a good run for the next short while. Then, just when it looks like things are getting sorted, the ABs will turn to dogshit again. It's how he rolls.

@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:

Imagine the meltdown on here if NZR extended him thru to 2027...

Well, I'm getting mentally prepared for it.

I half expect Foster to move on, but Robertson to not be appointed. That has been, after all, the NZR way for decades now.

@Dan54 said in Foster must go:

@No-Quarter said in Foster must go:

So if senior players are not asked their opinion, who should be? I actually think most senior players do recognise good coaching etc, most Crusaders players seem to like Razor, does that raise a red flag?

Like or respect?

Like being coached by, or like him as a person?

I respect my boss greatly. The previous boss was much more likeable, personally, but nowhere near as good to work for.

What are you guys on?

Foster has just kept the same squad, except getting a couple of players back in, who we know he had hard-ons for.

He's going to play the same team in Test 1 in SA that he did in Test 1 vs Ireland.

@Crucial said in All Blacks squad - The Rugby Championship:

If there are changes to be made that need to be explained to and ratified by the board (possibly even for DFA reasons) then it's pretty obvious that a board meeting scheduled way before the shit hit the fan would be rescheduled to deal with it.

Yes. By moving it forward!

Whose idea of crisis management is to let it simmer for a bit longer?