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 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.
-
@rotated said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
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.
Boyd really did ride Hammett’s coat tails....
-
@act-crusader said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
@rotated said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
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.
Boyd really did ride Hammett’s coat tails....
-
@no-quarter said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
@act-crusader said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
@rotated said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
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.
Boyd really did ride Hammett’s coat tails....
No use asking Nepia, he's got not a clue!
We know it's true because Conrad told us so.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/10268601/Hammett-was-popular-in-dressing-room-Smith
-
@chris-b said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
@no-quarter said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
@act-crusader said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
@rotated said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
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.
Boyd really did ride Hammett’s coat tails....
No use asking Nepia, he's got not a clue!
We know it's true because Conrad told us so.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/10268601/Hammett-was-popular-in-dressing-room-Smith
Chris would you kindly stop beating that dead farking horse.
If Hammett was such a great coach then why did not a single one of you red and black Hammett lovers want him as coach of the Sanders?
-
@rancid-schnitzel Hey, I was specifically asked for expert comment by a Canes (I think?) supporter!
-
@chris-b said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
@rancid-schnitzel Hey, I was specifically asked for expert comment by a Canes (I think?) supporter!
If he wanted an expert comment then why were you involved? He he
-
To give him his due, I think Hammett stamped out some bad habits and Boyd has benefited from this. But the problem is that in doing so he threw the baby out with the bathwater. He was also tactically inept and the quality of rugby his team played was terrible. No way would a Hammett coached team be playing in the manner the Canes have played for the past 4 years.
There are a number of different factors that go into a successful rugby team. You can have them training up a storm and buying into the coach's vision, but that doesn't mean anything if the tactics or game plan are crap. On the flip side you can have awesome players and tactics, but if the players are lazy and unfit then you won't succeed.
The Blues have heaps of talent but dont have any brains or leadership on the park and subsequently play dumb rugby. The selections are also somewhat dubious. IIRC the Highlanders had similar issues regarding leadership and brains during their tough run. They didn't necessarily have the Blues talent but shit they played some gash rugby.
Not sure how the Blues turn that around. There is zero leadership at the revolving 10 position for instance and the forwards aren't much better.
-
That 2011 Reds team was bloody good, it would be churlish to downplay it. If we follow the "rules" we have established for a successful Super Rugby team, then they ticked them off.
Genia was arguably the best halfback in the world at the time, and Cooper was in career best form (playing the kind of game that wins Super Rugby matches). Ioane was in career-best form, on the other wing they had Davies with his pace. The midfield was solid if not spectacular, but their job was to run at holes with Cooper hitting them with flat balls.
In the pack, Horwill was as good a lock as anyone that year. There was career-best form from Samo and Higgenbothom. Simmons was a role player, they had two good opensides. Holmes, ladyboy and i think it was Daley were a more then competent front row. It was a bloody good side. And MacKenzie was a good coach. Yes they had the "benefit" of the Crusaders being disadvantaged, but they more than deserved that title.
MacKenzie inherited a good squad, and got them playing better. I am loath to give them credit, but it's due for that year.
-
Rennie had a huge cleanout when he took over before the 2012 season. Something like 13 new players, the majority from outside the region, and many not household names (e.g. Tikorotuma). The likes of BBBR and Tameifuna played much bigger roles than expected. I know that the coaches spent a lot of time analysing players during the NPC and were meticulous in their recruitment.
I don't think that the Blues would need to do something so drastic as there is the nucleus of a good team there. But having the right players in key positions and leadership are important factors to success.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
To give him his due, I think Hammett stamped out some bad habits and Boyd has benefited from this. But the problem is that in doing so he threw the baby out with the bathwater. He was also tactically inept and the quality of rugby his team played was terrible. No way would a Hammett coached team be playing in the manner the Canes have played for the past 4 years.
There are a number of different factors that go into a successful rugby team. You can have them training up a storm and buying into the coach's vision, but that doesn't mean anything if the tactics or game plan are crap. On the flip side you can have awesome players and tactics, but if the players are lazy and unfit then you won't succeed.
The Blues have heaps of talent but dont have any brains or leadership on the park and subsequently play dumb rugby. The selections are also somewhat dubious. IIRC the Highlanders had similar issues regarding leadership and brains during their tough run. They didn't necessarily have the Blues talent but shit they played some gash rugby.
Not sure how the Blues turn that around. There is zero leadership at the revolving 10 position for instance and the forwards aren't much better.
Yeah, I'm willing to give Hammett his dues as a bit of a hit-man that made some pretty significant changes to the culture which we have benefited from. But as you say, he was severely limited as a head coach and the tactics under his reign were laughably bad. Most of that is probably due to a lack of experience in the role (I.E. absolutely none). I wouldn't write him off in the future as he learns his trade, but he was not up to the job at that time.
You could say similar things about Tana right now TBH (not the hit-man part). He's out of his depth at Super level - an assistant role would have benefited him at this time. Head coach is a seriously tough gig, throwing people into the role with little experience at SR level is pretty brainless stuff.
