Scott Robertson
-
@mohikamo said in Scott Robertson:
@His-Bobness said in Scott Robertson:
That’s what it looked like from the outside to me as well. I know there’s a school out there among the Crusaders rusted-ons that this was all a fiendish plot by Ardie Savea, but Captain Kirk and co would not have turned the stun guns to kill if the problem was just a clash of personalities.
Yes I dont buy that player power did Razor in.
But . . . conversely . . . the players may have been able save him, if they had all backed him at review time . . . but some of them, at least, clearly didn't do that.I dont either. The squad was clearly underperforming and had issues. You don't have to look to hard to see that. nz is a small place, all the issue would have been known well in advance.
Kirk made two points (around Oct/Nov) when he started his role - results are unacceptable and the process to appoint razor was flawed. Why say that? Well, it was clear to me at the time that it was like Game of thrones foreshadowing and Razor is not secure.
I doubt the players would have been able to save him. I think the issues were known for some time and that NZR had this outcome in mind for some tine
@DaGrubster said in Scott Robertson:
@mohikamo said in Scott Robertson:
@His-Bobness said in Scott Robertson:
That’s what it looked like from the outside to me as well. I know there’s a school out there among the Crusaders rusted-ons that this was all a fiendish plot by Ardie Savea, but Captain Kirk and co would not have turned the stun guns to kill if the problem was just a clash of personalities.
Yes I dont buy that player power did Razor in.
But . . . conversely . . . the players may have been able save him, if they had all backed him at review time . . . but some of them, at least, clearly didn't do that.I dont either. The squad was clearly underperforming and had issues. You don't have to look to hard to see that. nz is a small place, all the issue would have been known well in advance.
Kirk made two points (around Oct/Nov) when he started his role - results are unacceptable and the process to appoint razor was flawed. Why say that? Well, it was clear to me at the time that it was like Game of thrones foreshadowing and Razor is not secure.
I doubt the players would have been able to save him. I think the issues were known for some time and that NZR had this outcome in mind for some tine
The departure of Panadol was a huge Red Flag.
It was handled very diplomatically at the time, but should have resulted in a full behind the scenes debrief.
Would be no surprise if Robinson saw that as unnecessary.
-
@jimmyb said in Scott Robertson:
I’m sorry but that’s an absolutely pathetic reaction and comment. Not a very good coach? No one can question his success at a domestic level. Won a super rugby title in South Africa, undefeated
super rugby season?If you look at the squads he had over the years he was completely responsible for growing most of those players. Completely out coached any super coach he came up against. His game planes against the Blues and Chiefs squads over the past few years completely dismantled them and he was clearly a better coach than McMillan, Crotter, McDonald, Joseph etc.
These are the same arguments we heard when he was was being fluffed by all and sundry as the Super Coach who sort out all the problems of the Foster years. They were poor arguments then - and now..
He shouldn’t have had the ABs coaching job and he was out of his depth.
From what we've seen/heard, he would probably have been out of his depth coaching any team other than the Crusaders.
@Victor-Meldrew said in Scott Robertson:
@jimmyb said in Scott Robertson:
I’m sorry but that’s an absolutely pathetic reaction and comment. Not a very good coach? No one can question his success at a domestic level. Won a super rugby title in South Africa, undefeated
super rugby season?If you look at the squads he had over the years he was completely responsible for growing most of those players. Completely out coached any super coach he came up against. His game planes against the Blues and Chiefs squads over the past few years completely dismantled them and he was clearly a better coach than McMillan, Crotter, McDonald, Joseph etc.
These are the same arguments we heard when he was was being fluffed by all and sundry as the Super Coach who sort out all the problems of the Foster years. They were poor arguments then - and now..
Nah. Prior success is a decent argument and clearly a big positive. It's also clearly not everything, but you are treating it as so irrelevant that you don't even mention it vs his 'perceived charisma and powerpoint', which is if anything more absurd.
It's easy to say in hindsight that Robertson should not have been selected - but his record of success was a huge positive, it's about all that was actually visible to the punters, and in sharp contrast to Foster's lack of success with the Chiefs.
The responsibility for assessing the rest lies with the employers, as they are the people who interviewed him and made the decision based on more information. We all know they are/were a shitshow, because they appointed Foster with a shit process, then decided to sack him because we were shit, then didn't follow through because some players who Foster selected told them not to.
-
@sparky said in Scott Robertson:
Over-hyped and over-rated fraud. He must have known that he wasn't a very good coach and would be exposed hideously at the top level. The Emperor had no clothes. What an idiot!
No sympathy at all over his firing. Good riddance!
I’m sorry but that’s an absolutely pathetic reaction and comment. Not a very good coach? No one can question his success at a domestic level. Won a super rugby title in South Africa, undefeated
super rugby season?If you look at the squads he had over the years he was completely responsible for growing most of those players. Completely out coached any super coach he came up against. His game planes against the Blues and Chiefs squads over the past few years completely dismantled them and he was clearly a better coach than McMillan, Crotter, McDonald, Joseph etc.
He shouldn’t have had the ABs coaching job and he was out of his depth. But calling him a fraud and an idiot is a neurotic, witch hunter style comment.
@jimmyb said in Scott Robertson:
If you look at the squads he had over the years he was completely responsible for growing most of those players. Completely out coached any super coach he came up against. His game planes against the Blues and Chiefs squads over the past few years completely dismantled them and he was clearly a better coach than McMillan, Crotter, McDonald, Joseph etc.
Not acknowledging that the Crusaders do a much better job than other franchises in almost every aspect - having better players, greater depth and a stronger overall setup for success - is just as crazy as not acknowledging Robertson’s success. You make it sound like he would’ve won seven titles with any franchise.
-
Arriving in NZ tomorrow. I want to get hard copy of story behind thread. Anyone able to tell me which day NZH published the story in paper?
@pakman said in Scott Robertson:
Arriving in NZ tomorrow. I want to get hard copy of story behind thread. Anyone able to tell me which day NZH published the story in paper?
Saturday’s hard copy
-
@pakman said in Scott Robertson:
Arriving in NZ tomorrow. I want to get hard copy of story behind thread. Anyone able to tell me which day NZH published the story in paper?
Saturday’s hard copy
@zedsdeadbaby Cheers, Z!
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Scott Robertson:
@jimmyb said in Scott Robertson:
I’m not arguing for it. I’m saying the witch hunt style comments without acknowledging the success domestically is ridiculous. I’m glad he’s gone but this is getting pathetic
Blowback not surprising when you consider the hype the man generated.
There’s blowback, which is entirely appropriate, and then there’s borderline neurotic revisionism over what is the best super rugby record ever, winning three titles when it was still a competition (and not just get to the finals and watch Dmac shit the bed and hand you the game).
@jimmyb said in Scott Robertson:
when it was still a competition (and not just get to the finals and watch Dmac shit the bed and hand you the game).
I think this was a red flag in hindsight though. He missed out in 2019/20 to Foster and is told he and his team need more diverse experience.
So what does he do? Sticks around NZ and effectively doesnt change a thing. Just bides his time.
How exactly did he evolve in 2020-23? He didnt even have to deal with a new crop of players as it was the same core leadership group (Mounga, Whitelock, Taylor etc).
-
@jimmyb said in Scott Robertson:
when it was still a competition (and not just get to the finals and watch Dmac shit the bed and hand you the game).
I think this was a red flag in hindsight though. He missed out in 2019/20 to Foster and is told he and his team need more diverse experience.
So what does he do? Sticks around NZ and effectively doesnt change a thing. Just bides his time.
How exactly did he evolve in 2020-23? He didnt even have to deal with a new crop of players as it was the same core leadership group (Mounga, Whitelock, Taylor etc).
@KiwiMurph said in Scott Robertson:
@jimmyb said in Scott Robertson:
when it was still a competition (and not just get to the finals and watch Dmac shit the bed and hand you the game).
I think this was a red flag in hindsight though. He missed out in 2019/20 to Foster and is told he and his team need more diverse experience.
So what does he do? Sticks around NZ and effectively doesnt change a thing. Just bides his time.
How exactly did he evolve in 2020-23? He didnt even have to deal with a new crop of players as it was the same core leadership group (Mounga, Whitelock, Taylor etc).
That's pretty much it. Got told to spread his wings, but didn't. Just milked the praise from the local fans/press instead of trying to evolve as a coach.
-
@jimmyb said in Scott Robertson:
when it was still a competition (and not just get to the finals and watch Dmac shit the bed and hand you the game).
I think this was a red flag in hindsight though. He missed out in 2019/20 to Foster and is told he and his team need more diverse experience.
So what does he do? Sticks around NZ and effectively doesnt change a thing. Just bides his time.
How exactly did he evolve in 2020-23? He didnt even have to deal with a new crop of players as it was the same core leadership group (Mounga, Whitelock, Taylor etc).
@KiwiMurph which takes me back to the point I made earlier.
Nah we're sticking with Foster, go get some different experiences.
Foster's results improved, Razor did the same thing as before, and they STILL made the change like 15 months later.What happened?
-
@KiwiMurph which takes me back to the point I made earlier.
Nah we're sticking with Foster, go get some different experiences.
Foster's results improved, Razor did the same thing as before, and they STILL made the change like 15 months later.What happened?
@mariner4life said in Scott Robertson:
@KiwiMurph which takes me back to the point I made earlier.
Nah we're sticking with Foster, go get some different experiences.
Foster's results improved, Razor did the same thing as before, and they STILL made the change like 15 months later.What happened?
He threatened to leave and Robinson caved
-
@jimmyb said in Scott Robertson:
If you look at the squads he had over the years he was completely responsible for growing most of those players. Completely out coached any super coach he came up against. His game planes against the Blues and Chiefs squads over the past few years completely dismantled them and he was clearly a better coach than McMillan, Crotter, McDonald, Joseph etc.
Not acknowledging that the Crusaders do a much better job than other franchises in almost every aspect - having better players, greater depth and a stronger overall setup for success - is just as crazy as not acknowledging Robertson’s success. You make it sound like he would’ve won seven titles with any franchise.
@ShaquilleOatmeal said in Scott Robertson:
@jimmyb said in Scott Robertson:
If you look at the squads he had over the years he was completely responsible for growing most of those players. Completely out coached any super coach he came up against. His game planes against the Blues and Chiefs squads over the past few years completely dismantled them and he was clearly a better coach than McMillan, Crotter, McDonald, Joseph etc.
Not acknowledging that the Crusaders do a much better job than other franchises in almost every aspect - having better players, greater depth and a stronger overall setup for success - is just as crazy as not acknowledging Robertson’s success. You make it sound like he would’ve won seven titles with any franchise.
And not acknowledging a big improvement in the Crusaders from Todd Blackadder to Robertson, and a big drop from Robertson to Penney, seems a bit of an oversight too?
-
At the risk of driving this off topic Penney I think deserves more credit after getting the title last year, went through some pain in 24 but managed to get them in the right space in 2025 to win. Also had to deal with no Mo’unga or Whitelock in 2024, two seismic losses plus Will Jordan missed the entire season.
Razor didn’t have to deal with that sort of adversity - there were years he used a lot of players but never the departures like in 2024. -
@ShaquilleOatmeal said in Scott Robertson:
@jimmyb said in Scott Robertson:
If you look at the squads he had over the years he was completely responsible for growing most of those players. Completely out coached any super coach he came up against. His game planes against the Blues and Chiefs squads over the past few years completely dismantled them and he was clearly a better coach than McMillan, Crotter, McDonald, Joseph etc.
Not acknowledging that the Crusaders do a much better job than other franchises in almost every aspect - having better players, greater depth and a stronger overall setup for success - is just as crazy as not acknowledging Robertson’s success. You make it sound like he would’ve won seven titles with any franchise.
And not acknowledging a big improvement in the Crusaders from Todd Blackadder to Robertson, and a big drop from Robertson to Penney, seems a bit of an oversight too?
@reprobate said in Scott Robertson:
@ShaquilleOatmeal said in Scott Robertson:
@jimmyb said in Scott Robertson:
If you look at the squads he had over the years he was completely responsible for growing most of those players. Completely out coached any super coach he came up against. His game planes against the Blues and Chiefs squads over the past few years completely dismantled them and he was clearly a better coach than McMillan, Crotter, McDonald, Joseph etc.
Not acknowledging that the Crusaders do a much better job than other franchises in almost every aspect - having better players, greater depth and a stronger overall setup for success - is just as crazy as not acknowledging Robertson’s success. You make it sound like he would’ve won seven titles with any franchise.
And not acknowledging a big improvement in the Crusaders from Todd Blackadder to Robertson, and a big drop from Robertson to Penney, seems a bit of an oversight too?
Why would I need to? That’s changing the frame of the discussion: how much was already in place at the Crusaders compared to other franchises. Pointing to Blackadder before and Penney after doesn’t negate that - especially when Penney still won a title in his second year.
Robertson definitely did something well - he got players to work hard for him, even the methods seem silly. That doesn’t mean he didn’t benefit from the strongest setup in the competition.
-
@mohikamo said in Scott Robertson:
@Dan54 said in Scott Robertson:
I thought the English test worried me more , we looked lost whole test.
Yep, I actually stopped watching that game when we were 12 in front. Had already seen enough.
Mate I admit one thing I can't do is ever stop watching a test
Lol perhaps I just a desperate though mate, and understand why you did.@Dan54 said in Scott Robertson:
Mate I admit one thing I can't do is ever stop watching a test
Lol perhaps I just a desperate though mate, and understand why you did.I did watch every single test match for about 50 years (since 71), and all the non-test matches when they started broadcasting them (78 tour I think).
And before that it was radio!
In the last few years tho, the game has headed in a direction I never thought it would (as a spectacle that is) and I just find it sooo irritating.
Still watch a lot of amateur rugby tho. Lots of fun, everyday guys and girls gettin out there and havin a go. -
@reprobate said in Scott Robertson:
@ShaquilleOatmeal said in Scott Robertson:
@jimmyb said in Scott Robertson:
If you look at the squads he had over the years he was completely responsible for growing most of those players. Completely out coached any super coach he came up against. His game planes against the Blues and Chiefs squads over the past few years completely dismantled them and he was clearly a better coach than McMillan, Crotter, McDonald, Joseph etc.
Not acknowledging that the Crusaders do a much better job than other franchises in almost every aspect - having better players, greater depth and a stronger overall setup for success - is just as crazy as not acknowledging Robertson’s success. You make it sound like he would’ve won seven titles with any franchise.
And not acknowledging a big improvement in the Crusaders from Todd Blackadder to Robertson, and a big drop from Robertson to Penney, seems a bit of an oversight too?
Why would I need to? That’s changing the frame of the discussion: how much was already in place at the Crusaders compared to other franchises. Pointing to Blackadder before and Penney after doesn’t negate that - especially when Penney still won a title in his second year.
Robertson definitely did something well - he got players to work hard for him, even the methods seem silly. That doesn’t mean he didn’t benefit from the strongest setup in the competition.
@ShaquilleOatmeal said in Scott Robertson:
@reprobate said in Scott Robertson:
@ShaquilleOatmeal said in Scott Robertson:
@jimmyb said in Scott Robertson:
If you look at the squads he had over the years he was completely responsible for growing most of those players. Completely out coached any super coach he came up against. His game planes against the Blues and Chiefs squads over the past few years completely dismantled them and he was clearly a better coach than McMillan, Crotter, McDonald, Joseph etc.
Not acknowledging that the Crusaders do a much better job than other franchises in almost every aspect - having better players, greater depth and a stronger overall setup for success - is just as crazy as not acknowledging Robertson’s success. You make it sound like he would’ve won seven titles with any franchise.
And not acknowledging a big improvement in the Crusaders from Todd Blackadder to Robertson, and a big drop from Robertson to Penney, seems a bit of an oversight too?
Why would I need to? That’s changing the frame of the discussion: how much was already in place at the Crusaders compared to other franchises. Pointing to Blackadder before and Penney after doesn’t negate that - especially when Penney still won a title in his second year.
Robertson definitely did something well - he got players to work hard for him, even the methods seem silly. That doesn’t mean he didn’t benefit from the strongest setup in the competition.
Crusaders were 4th, 4th 2nd, 7th, 7th the five years before Robertson. Other teams:
Chiefs: 1, 1, 5, 5, 6
Canes: 8, 11, 7 ,2 ,1
Landers: 9, 14, 6, 1, 3
Blues were abject.As someone who doesn't believe in the Crusaders inherent superiority, the Canes, Landers and Chiefs all had better records the couple of years before Robertson took over.
Then they won seven times in a row with Robertson.
Then they were 9th the year after.It's a great record, and I find it hard to write 7 years off as a luck or 'anyone could have done it', despite what an appalling mess he's made of the ABs. Why do we need to belittle his previous achievements or re-write history?
(Off topic but really impressed with Penney last year by the way, not easy to win a title without an international 10).
-
Razor did not fluke 7 years of titles so what he did suited the crusaders as well as the fact he had a team of generational talent.
But it shows the difference between super and test level. Some players are stars in super but duds at international so same applies to coaches.
Razor could go away and reinvent himself by learning in different environments its just whether he wants to. -
@ShaquilleOatmeal said in Scott Robertson:
@reprobate said in Scott Robertson:
@ShaquilleOatmeal said in Scott Robertson:
@jimmyb said in Scott Robertson:
If you look at the squads he had over the years he was completely responsible for growing most of those players. Completely out coached any super coach he came up against. His game planes against the Blues and Chiefs squads over the past few years completely dismantled them and he was clearly a better coach than McMillan, Crotter, McDonald, Joseph etc.
Not acknowledging that the Crusaders do a much better job than other franchises in almost every aspect - having better players, greater depth and a stronger overall setup for success - is just as crazy as not acknowledging Robertson’s success. You make it sound like he would’ve won seven titles with any franchise.
And not acknowledging a big improvement in the Crusaders from Todd Blackadder to Robertson, and a big drop from Robertson to Penney, seems a bit of an oversight too?
Why would I need to? That’s changing the frame of the discussion: how much was already in place at the Crusaders compared to other franchises. Pointing to Blackadder before and Penney after doesn’t negate that - especially when Penney still won a title in his second year.
Robertson definitely did something well - he got players to work hard for him, even the methods seem silly. That doesn’t mean he didn’t benefit from the strongest setup in the competition.
Crusaders were 4th, 4th 2nd, 7th, 7th the five years before Robertson. Other teams:
Chiefs: 1, 1, 5, 5, 6
Canes: 8, 11, 7 ,2 ,1
Landers: 9, 14, 6, 1, 3
Blues were abject.As someone who doesn't believe in the Crusaders inherent superiority, the Canes, Landers and Chiefs all had better records the couple of years before Robertson took over.
Then they won seven times in a row with Robertson.
Then they were 9th the year after.It's a great record, and I find it hard to write 7 years off as a luck or 'anyone could have done it', despite what an appalling mess he's made of the ABs. Why do we need to belittle his previous achievements or re-write history?
(Off topic but really impressed with Penney last year by the way, not easy to win a title without an international 10).
@reprobate I didn’t say anybody could have won seven titles or that it wasn’t impressive. But to make out every coach at every franchise has the same starting point is just nonsense. And Blackadder’s record is a reflection on his coaching, not Robertson’s.
Some people think the seven titles are purely down to Robertson and nothing else. Others think there’s more to it. I’ll leave it at that.
