Blues win percentage against NZ teams
-
@duluth said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
What changed? How fast did it change?
New coach seemed to help, along with have a super AB coach to pull the strings too
-
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
-
@hooroo said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
@duluth said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
What changed? How fast did it change?
New coach seemed to help, along with have a super AB coach to pull the strings too
And the recruitment of an 1st five totally suited to carving up at Super level. Plus Brodie breaking out about then, plus Cane.
-
@duluth said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
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!
-
@duluth said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
What changed? How fast did it change?
really fucking quick actually. And Facebook reminded me the other week, thanks to the memory functions. Rennie came on board, and the first week looked the fucking same as ever, ropey defense, shithouse set piece, headless play.
The next memory was two weeks later, and all of those things had turned around. The cornerstones of decent rugby appeared (after years of neglect), and it allowed our heads-up attack to flourish. And we won back to back comps.
-
@mariner4life said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
@duluth said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
What changed? How fast did it change?
really fucking quick actually. And Facebook reminded me the other week, thanks to the memory functions. Rennie came on board, and the first week looked the fucking same as ever, ropey defense, shithouse set piece, headless play.
The next memory was two weeks later, and all of those things had turned around. The cornerstones of decent rugby appeared (after years of neglect), and it allowed our heads-up attack to flourish. And we won back to back comps.
aaahhhh goood times
-
@hooroo said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
@duluth said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
What changed? How fast did it change?
New coach seemed to help, along with have a super AB coach to pull the strings too
I'm sure Auckland would look miles better with an All Black first five-eighth and Wayne Smith as assistant.
-
@gt12 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:
What changed? How fast did it change?
New coach seemed to help, along with have a super AB coach to pull the strings too
And the recruitment of an 1st five totally suited to carving up at Super level. Plus Brodie breaking out about then, plus Cane.
They'd had Donald, who was adequate for the job, should the coach be good enough to get his head on the right space. We'd made the finals with him.
Foster's team were well coached, technically. He's taken that to the ABs. The players liked him.
They were poorly selected, particularly in that off-field stuff was ignored, so lazy and disruptive players stayed in the team. Rennie was ruthless in getting rid of anyone who wouldn't train 100%.
But the real issue was motivation. Foster's teams played well under no pressure, as noted above. When high in the competition they'd fold to lower teams consistently. The way they crumbled in the one final they got was exactly what they were like. I knew it would happen, so could not bear to watch the game, to save my blood pressure.
If Foster coaches the ABs, expect mental brittleness to reappear.
Rennie did inherit a team who were enjoying their rugby and were technically sound. The transformation of the head space was total though.
A great coach could turn the Blues around in a season, I don't doubt that.
:::
Spoiler Text
:::
-
@hooroo said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
@duluth said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
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 one of the big changes at the chiefs was attitude and culture.i remember reading an article that said how bad the players were at taking short cut at training etc.
5 yrs ago i dont think i would have been a big believer in how the culture of a team leads to success but the chiefs are a prime example of the difference it can make.
little bit off topic but it seems to be a major problem at the silver ferns at the moment to. -
@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:
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.
-
It's common to blame the lack of quality first fives on the Blues' fortunes. The accepted theory is you need a world class first five to win Super Rugby. I actually agree with the theory but would also add I didn't think Sopoaga was a World Class first five until all of a sudden he was. This came off the back of years of sticking around, development and most importantly good coaching.
-
Interesting take a couple of factors not considered.
The quality of non-Blues NZ teams change drastically. For example during Lam's 2010 tenure the Chiefs and Highlanders were bottom four on the table.
Umaga has the toughest job because the most damage has been done before him. A quality coach could have turned around things straight after Nucifora went sideways, but the tenures of Kirwan and Lam have done such damage to the culture and reputation of the club the task in front of Tana is harder than Lam who was at least handed a professional sporting team.
That doesn't excuse Umaga - he was handed the team in such poor condition that the bar of initial success was lower than it was for any of the others too, and he is struggling to make it.
-
@chester-draws said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
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.
Smith's effort with the Crusaders was the most dramatic.
Taking teams to a title takes skill from the box no doubt, but almost every instance where a coach has overnight success with a franchise they were building off some very solid infrastructure. Huge difference graduating a team to champion from fringe finalist and cellar dweller.
Even McKenzie took over a side that had Eddie Jones fingerprints still on it.
-
@rotated said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
@chester-draws said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
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.
Smith's effort with the Crusaders was the most dramatic.
Taking teams to a title takes skill from the box no doubt, but almost every instance where a coach has overnight success with a franchise they were building off some very solid infrastructure. Huge difference graduating a team to champion from fringe finalist and cellar dweller.
Even McKenzie took over a side that had Eddie Jones fingerprints still on it.
Wayne Smith is a dead set genius, but the initial showing of the Crusaders in the first year of Super Rugby is extremely misleading. They really, really didn't get their heads around the new franchise thing.
Looking at the squads, makes me think McKenzie pulled off a minor miracle. I think winning a championship with Quade Cooper is somewhat harder than with an Andrew Mehrtens steering the show.
What Smith did, long term, of course was much better -- because he could back it up, and then again.
@pukunui. Thanks for the correction. It was some time back.
-
@chester-draws said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
Wayne Smith is a dead set genius, but the initial showing of the Crusaders in the first year of Super Rugby is extremely misleading. They really, really didn't get their heads around the new franchise thing.
Looking at the squads, makes me think McKenzie pulled off a minor miracle. I think winning a championship with Quade Cooper is somewhat harder than with an Andrew Mehrtens steering the show.
True and the Canterbury infrastructure was a solid base to work from even if they were poor the first year out.
Reds title was a combination of the conference system helping them to a top seed and the travelling Crusaders. Strange year, but McKenzie did manage to get them playing good rugby the win over the Crusaders during the regular season was impressive.
-
@gt12 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:
What changed? How fast did it change?
New coach seemed to help, along with have a super AB coach to pull the strings too
And the recruitment of an 1st five totally suited to carving up at Super level. Plus Brodie breaking out about then, plus Cane.
Cruden played every minute of the 2012 campaign didn't he? He was a major contributor to the Chiefs title campaign. 2013 too.
