Scott Robertson
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Scott Robertson:
@jimmyb said in Scott Robertson:
@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).
You could almost call it ironic.....
The sentiment and discourse around NZ rugby is now mirroring exactly what has gone wrong in Australia over the past 10-12 years. It’s tribal, it lacks context, it’s overly emotive, and obsessed with domestic allegiances. This kind of sentiment around Robertson is part of the problem
@jimmyb said in Scott Robertson:
The sentiment and discourse around NZ rugby is now mirroring exactly what has gone wrong in Australia over the past 10-12 years. It’s tribal, it lacks context, it’s overly emotive, and obsessed with domestic allegiances. This kind of sentiment around Robertson is part of the problem
The tribal stuff....seems to me went back to the Hart era if not not longer.
-
@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.
@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.
That's the point when I learn the most about our team's weaknesses.
-
Razor's tenure reminds me a lot of Ewen McKenzie's with the Wallabies. McKenzie diverted away from what he'd done so well with the Reds which meant he lost the support of many of those Reds players. The rest then fell like dominos and then everything collapsed towards the end.
@Mr-Fish said in Scott Robertson:
Razor's tenure reminds me a lot of Ewen McKenzie's with the Wallabies. McKenzie diverted away from what he'd done so well with the Reds which meant he lost the support of many of those Reds players. The rest then fell like dominos and then everything collapsed towards the end.
I'm still a bit confused about what happened there. Was reading his and Eddie's analysis of the last French game, and I thought Ewen was more incisive.
-
Seems to me there's something rotten at the assistant coach level. I'd also be very surprised if having the Mo at 10 would have helped us play that much better. General skills has deteriorated in the backline, our wingers aren't well-used, midfield is open, and the best loosies combo is anyone's guess.
I do wonder if Barrett's relatively shy performance as captain led to some team disruption.@nostrildamus i think the key with Mounga is he was a pivotal player who knew what Razor wanted (at least in Razors mind) needed and fitted his culture, so I expect thats why he was so desperate for him.
Maybe he simply was unable to communicate effectively with BB and Dmac, which is why we saw such erratic play from BB and so little starts for Dmac.
Our pack regressed under Razor, Jordie regressed after looking sharp at Leinster and initially when he returned but the longer he was back the lesser player he looked.
-
I think the point has been proved with Razor. He was by far the popular choice by NZ public from what I read. And certainly in almost every rugby forum I read.
Wonder what that may hint at?@Dan54 said in Scott Robertson:
I think the point has been proved with Razor. He was by far the popular choice by NZ public from what I read. And certainly in almost every rugby forum I read.
Wonder what that may hint at?I'm not sure it is black and white though. The early Foster era pre Schmidt and Ryan was not flash. If Foster could have those two from the start I don't know if Razor would have been such a popular choice. That game where Schmidt took over because Foster and Co were sick was a revelation to me. They suddenly looked a well-trained team. I'm not sure Schmidt's coaching has a long shelf-life (beyond 2-4 years, Ireland began to look predictable) but his work in getting teams off the floor looks pretty good to me. It's a shame I won't see what he would have picked and abandoned if he had taken over.
But there is some revision going on in this thread. I could not find In Razor We Trust posts declaring him a Super Coach who would solve everything (Surf Jesus was clearly a joke). Sure there may have been some. But many people thought the (early) Foster era was not good enough and Foster's coaching record was not that great. There were other options apart from Razor then... There are posters on here who created a straw man follower argument and it's pretty tiring.
Hats off to Sammy C in a 2018 post who reckoned Foster would be appointed but might not be a "raging success."
-
I think the point has been proved with Razor. He was by far the popular choice by NZ public from what I read. And certainly in almost every rugby forum I read.
Wonder what that may hint at?@Dan54 said in Scott Robertson:
I think the point has been proved with Razor. He was by far the popular choice by NZ public from what I read. And certainly in almost every rugby forum I read.
Wonder what that may hint at?That only true rugby men understand rugby?
-
@Dan54 said in Scott Robertson:
I think the point has been proved with Razor. He was by far the popular choice by NZ public from what I read. And certainly in almost every rugby forum I read.
Wonder what that may hint at?That only true rugby men understand rugby?
@Frank said in Scott Robertson:
That only true rugby men understand rugby?
Not a fan of the female players then?
-
I think the point has been proved with Razor. He was by far the popular choice by NZ public from what I read. And certainly in almost every rugby forum I read.
Wonder what that may hint at?@Dan54 said in Scott Robertson:
I think the point has been proved with Razor. He was by far the popular choice by NZ public from what I read. And certainly in almost every rugby forum I read.
Wonder what that may hint at?The NZ public know nothing. Fault lies at the feet of the CEO and the board, who were obviously sold by Razor's pitch (Or his pitch raised no alarms). I can't believe the guy was any different in his presentation than he was at his match week pressers. You don't just get clueless all of a sudden. So I can only assume the board and Robinson were asleep at the wheel, which isn't a big leap
-
@Dan54 said in Scott Robertson:
I think the point has been proved with Razor. He was by far the popular choice by NZ public from what I read. And certainly in almost every rugby forum I read.
Wonder what that may hint at?That only true rugby men understand rugby?
@Frank said in Scott Robertson:
@Dan54 said in Scott Robertson:
I think the point has been proved with Razor. He was by far the popular choice by NZ public from what I read. And certainly in almost every rugby forum I read.
Wonder what that may hint at?That only true rugby men understand rugby?
No perhaps that just it's not a popularity contest, but should be only who is best for job.
NZR should ignore the popular opinion, and I truly believe they were swayed by it.
That was a failure on their part!
And I hope lesson is learnt! -
@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..
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.
What seems apparent is that, once he actually got his feet under the desk, he realised that the job was much bigger and harder than he ever thought it would be. A part of that seems to be the "professionalism" of the environment, which he was either not used to working in or not up to working in.
-
@Frank said in Scott Robertson:
@Dan54 said in Scott Robertson:
I think the point has been proved with Razor. He was by far the popular choice by NZ public from what I read. And certainly in almost every rugby forum I read.
Wonder what that may hint at?That only true rugby men understand rugby?
No perhaps that just it's not a popularity contest, but should be only who is best for job.
NZR should ignore the popular opinion, and I truly believe they were swayed by it.
That was a failure on their part!
And I hope lesson is learnt!@Dan54 said in Scott Robertson:
@Frank said in Scott Robertson:
@Dan54 said in Scott Robertson:
I think the point has been proved with Razor. He was by far the popular choice by NZ public from what I read. And certainly in almost every rugby forum I read.
Wonder what that may hint at?That only true rugby men understand rugby?
No perhaps that just it's not a popularity contest, but should be only who is best for job.
NZR should ignore the popular opinion, and I truly believe they were swayed by it.
That was a failure on their part!
And I hope lesson is learnt!You’re right, they shouldn’t listen to what the masses say. But I’m not sure they did - I think they just happened to have bought into the hype in the same way as the general public.
-
@nostrildamus i think the key with Mounga is he was a pivotal player who knew what Razor wanted (at least in Razors mind) needed and fitted his culture, so I expect thats why he was so desperate for him.
Maybe he simply was unable to communicate effectively with BB and Dmac, which is why we saw such erratic play from BB and so little starts for Dmac.
Our pack regressed under Razor, Jordie regressed after looking sharp at Leinster and initially when he returned but the longer he was back the lesser player he looked.
@taniwharugby said in Scott Robertson:
@nostrildamus i think the key with Mounga is he was a pivotal player who knew what Razor wanted (at least in Razors mind) needed and fitted his culture, so I expect thats why he was so desperate for him.
Maybe he simply was unable to communicate effectively with BB and Dmac, which is why we saw such erratic play from BB and so little starts for Dmac.
Our pack regressed under Razor, Jordie regressed after looking sharp at Leinster and initially when he returned but the longer he was back the lesser player he looked.
I think our pack stagnated perhaps (and lineouts became a concern) but it may have also been relative to the opposition. Agree on Jordie, he came back looking great!
-
if Razor sold himself as the culture coach to NZR at his interview then yeah it seems like he had it coming given the alleged team disruptions. I agree with Devlin, calling Hansen the coach was inexplicable.
-
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.@kidcalder said in Scott Robertson:
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.I agree with everything you said but he did have legendary players leave and he was still incredibly succesful.
I note when he was appointed there were some people critical of the process (Mexted) and lack of international experience (Eddie Jones! & UK papers) but there was also some concern apparently (well according to AI) within NZR about the international experience of his assistant coaches. NZR said they wanted some say but as far as I can tell he got the assistant coaches he wanted (bar Brown, who ruled himself unavailable if not on the Joseph ticket). -
Seems to me there's something rotten at the assistant coach level. I'd also be very surprised if having the Mo at 10 would have helped us play that much better. General skills has deteriorated in the backline, our wingers aren't well-used, midfield is open, and the best loosies combo is anyone's guess.
I do wonder if Barrett's relatively shy performance as captain led to some team disruption.@nostrildamus said in Scott Robertson:
Seems to me there's something rotten at the assistant coach level. I'd also be very surprised if having the Mo at 10 would have helped us play that much better. General skills has deteriorated in the backline, our wingers aren't well-used, midfield is open, and the best loosies combo is anyone's guess.
I do wonder if Barrett's relatively shy performance as captain led to some team disruption.Hard disagree with the first bit, the impact of a lack of Mo'unga (and I'm not even really a fan). I think the improvement in Foster's team 'coincided' with him stopping fucking around with Barrett at 10 and putting Mo'unga there full time.
Of course the same improvement would have been achieved if Robertson had just picked McKenzie every week, so it's hardly an excuse.The shit being served up from 10 covers the first 3 of your 2nd points (as well as our shit kicking game), and yes the loosies have been a confused mess throughout.
Given the dysfunction, I wouldn't imagine it was an easy side to captain. Not many options now who seem untainted and demanding a starting spot: I guess Jordie or Taylor is about as good as it gets.
-
@nostrildamus said in Scott Robertson:
Seems to me there's something rotten at the assistant coach level. I'd also be very surprised if having the Mo at 10 would have helped us play that much better. General skills has deteriorated in the backline, our wingers aren't well-used, midfield is open, and the best loosies combo is anyone's guess.
I do wonder if Barrett's relatively shy performance as captain led to some team disruption.Hard disagree with the first bit, the impact of a lack of Mo'unga (and I'm not even really a fan). I think the improvement in Foster's team 'coincided' with him stopping fucking around with Barrett at 10 and putting Mo'unga there full time.
Of course the same improvement would have been achieved if Robertson had just picked McKenzie every week, so it's hardly an excuse.The shit being served up from 10 covers the first 3 of your 2nd points (as well as our shit kicking game), and yes the loosies have been a confused mess throughout.
Given the dysfunction, I wouldn't imagine it was an easy side to captain. Not many options now who seem untainted and demanding a starting spot: I guess Jordie or Taylor is about as good as it gets.
@reprobate said in Scott Robertson:
@nostrildamus said in Scott Robertson:
Seems to me there's something rotten at the assistant coach level. I'd also be very surprised if having the Mo at 10 would have helped us play that much better. General skills has deteriorated in the backline, our wingers aren't well-used, midfield is open, and the best loosies combo is anyone's guess.
I do wonder if Barrett's relatively shy performance as captain led to some team disruption.Hard disagree with the first bit, the impact of a lack of Mo'unga (and I'm not even really a fan). I think the improvement in Foster's team 'coincided' with him stopping fucking around with Barrett at 10 and putting Mo'unga there full time.
Of course the same improvement would have been achieved if Robertson had just picked McKenzie every week, so it's hardly an excuse.The shit being served up from 10 covers the first 3 of your 2nd points (as well as our shit kicking game), and yes the loosies have been a confused mess throughout.
Given the dysfunction, I wouldn't imagine it was an easy side to captain. Not many options now who seem untainted and demanding a starting spot: I guess Jordie or Taylor is about as good as it gets.
Taylor as a bridge Captain for me, then install the future potential captain into the senior group
-
@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.
Prior success is a decent argument and clearly a big positive
Only up to a point. In business, when you pick a new CEO you equally look at how they handled adversity and different environments and cultures. You look forward, not back.
It's easy to say in hindsight that Robertson should not have been selected
Come on, many people were saying at the time that while he was hugely talented, it was simplistic to compare SR success to Test level, it was a big risk and he needed Test experience and should have done time as an Assistant first. (@nzzp , @Kirwan , etc). They were invariably shouted down.
