Blues 2018
-
@taniwharugby said in Blues 2018:
@kiwimurph I reckon even with Tana stil at the helm, they cant help but improve next season!
[End of 2017]It can't get any worse than that Sunwolves thrashing![/End of 2017]
-
@duluth Blues 40 Sharks 63
Blues 10 Rebels 20IMO those 2 home losses are infinitely worse than that loss to the SW, playing on EP used to mean something...they cold start there.
-
@chris-b said in Blues 2018:
@kiwimurph I guess a wildcard in the mix is that it is RWC year, so not everyone's eyes will be focused on Super rugby. That might help (or hinder) the Blues.
Still, the most likely result is the Blues do a little bit better than this year, but still don't make the play-offs. I don't really see that strengthening Leon's hand.
How not? In this situation he'd either be head coach himself in 2020 or someone better than him (e.g. Gatland) comes in as coach and MacDonald has a chance to really make a difference.
What else was there left to achieve/prove at the Crusaders? He already won a title as assistant coach there?
@kiwimurph He might be Head Coach, but he'd be a bit tarnished - both with the fans and the players - at least in terms of coming in with a brand new broom. That new Warriors CEO made a good point that you only get one chance to get things right and this path seems like a good one towards being compromised.
Leon's already left the Crusaders and I can't see him going back as an assistant. I reckon he'd be in a strong position this time next year just by staying as Head Coach at Ta$man (except AB call ups are likely to hurt the Mako pretty badly).
-
I agree
I'm making the point that Tana's Blues have managed to keep lowering their own shitty standards
Improvement next year is not a given
@duluth fair enough, although I reckon they are at thier basement level -25, it wold surely take a monumental effort to get any lower (not that improvement next year is a sign of any good Tana might have done)
-
The Blues have been staggeringly consistent-at developing players who play far better at the other franchises and at making obviously talented players that they do keep practise imitating headless chickens.
**hmm or maybe they don't know to fully develop them?
-
@kiwimurph He might be Head Coach, but he'd be a bit tarnished - both with the fans and the players - at least in terms of coming in with a brand new broom. That new Warriors CEO made a good point that you only get one chance to get things right and this path seems like a good one towards being compromised.
Leon's already left the Crusaders and I can't see him going back as an assistant. I reckon he'd be in a strong position this time next year just by staying as Head Coach at Ta$man (except AB call ups are likely to hurt the Mako pretty badly).
@chris-b fair point.
I guess the flip side is you could argue that being in the 2019 coaching set up would give him an advantage than if he was to come in 2020. 2019 gives him a good look at the current players, the current culture of the team, potentially a headstart on recruiting for 2020 etc.
-
All jokes aside though - how the hell does Redman, a dude with a string of expensive failures to his name, still have a job with the Blues?
This bunch of numpties and the Pied Piper of Fucking Awful are basically the case study for how not to run a rugby franchise.
-
Interesting to see that plenty of people are convinced a new coach will achieve instant, significant improvement yet bringing in a new assistant (a very good one) won't yield any improvements.
Surely Tana isn't going to bring in Mcdonald just to ignore his input.
I would imagine as a condition of him taking the job it would have been made clear that he would have a large amount of input across selection and tactics etc. -
Interesting to see that plenty of people are convinced a new coach will achieve instant, significant improvement yet bringing in a new assistant (a very good one) won't yield any improvements.
Surely Tana isn't going to bring in Mcdonald just to ignore his input.
I would imagine as a condition of him taking the job it would have been made clear that he would have a large amount of input across selection and tactics etc.@pukunui said in Blues 2018:
Interesting to see that plenty of people are convinced a new coach will achieve instant, significant improvement yet bringing in a new assistant (a very good one) won't yield any improvements.
Plenty of people said both of those things? I don't think anyone has said that
-
-
Interesting to see that plenty of people are convinced a new coach will achieve instant, significant improvement yet bringing in a new assistant (a very good one) won't yield any improvements.
Surely Tana isn't going to bring in Mcdonald just to ignore his input.
I would imagine as a condition of him taking the job it would have been made clear that he would have a large amount of input across selection and tactics etc.@pukunui said in Blues 2018:
Interesting to see that plenty of people are convinced a new coach will achieve instant, significant improvement yet bringing in a new assistant (a very good one) won't yield any improvements.
the top dog sets the standards, hires and fires, and their attitude trickles down through and organisation.
No-one cares what the deputy prime minister thinks of something, or if they have an issue. It's only when the big cheese sets the bar, that people respond.
Hansen was AC to Deans, and they are fundamentally different. he says you spend time biting your tongue.
Finally, it's not just 'a new head coach' but 'the right head coach'. Rennie, Henry, Smith and Deans all got results very quickly, without major personnel change if I recall correctly.
-
@pukunui said in Blues 2018:
Interesting to see that plenty of people are convinced a new coach will achieve instant, significant improvement yet bringing in a new assistant (a very good one) won't yield any improvements.
Plenty of people said both of those things? I don't think anyone has said that
@duluth said in Blues 2018:
@pukunui said in Blues 2018:
Interesting to see that plenty of people are convinced a new coach will achieve instant, significant improvement yet bringing in a new assistant (a very good one) won't yield any improvements.
Plenty of people said both of those things? I don't think anyone has said that
Maybe im misreading it but the general consensus seems to be a new (good) coach would have pretty instant success and also that Leon is taking an unnecessary risk by going there as an assistant because the chances of the team improving are low.
-
@pukunui said in Blues 2018:
Interesting to see that plenty of people are convinced a new coach will achieve instant, significant improvement yet bringing in a new assistant (a very good one) won't yield any improvements.
the top dog sets the standards, hires and fires, and their attitude trickles down through and organisation.
No-one cares what the deputy prime minister thinks of something, or if they have an issue. It's only when the big cheese sets the bar, that people respond.
Hansen was AC to Deans, and they are fundamentally different. he says you spend time biting your tongue.
Finally, it's not just 'a new head coach' but 'the right head coach'. Rennie, Henry, Smith and Deans all got results very quickly, without major personnel change if I recall correctly.
@nzzp said in Blues 2018:
@pukunui said in Blues 2018:
Interesting to see that plenty of people are convinced a new coach will achieve instant, significant improvement yet bringing in a new assistant (a very good one) won't yield any improvements.
the top dog sets the standards, hires and fires, and their attitude trickles down through and organisation.
No-one cares what the deputy prime minister thinks of something, or if they have an issue. It's only when the big cheese sets the bar, that people respond.
Hansen was AC to Deans, and they are fundamentally different. he says you spend time biting your tongue.
Finally, it's not just 'a new head coach' but 'the right head coach'. Rennie, Henry, Smith and Deans all got results very quickly, without major personnel change if I recall correctly.
The fact is that good assistants can make a huge difference. That is why Wayne Smith was in such high demand. And why Leon himself was in high demand. There is a good chance he can help make a significant improvements of the Blues next year even if he is "under" Tana.
-
@duluth said in Blues 2018:
@pukunui said in Blues 2018:
Interesting to see that plenty of people are convinced a new coach will achieve instant, significant improvement yet bringing in a new assistant (a very good one) won't yield any improvements.
Plenty of people said both of those things? I don't think anyone has said that
Maybe im misreading it but the general consensus seems to be a new (good) coach would have pretty instant success and also that Leon is taking an unnecessary risk by going there as an assistant because the chances of the team improving are low.
@pukunui Leon is going there as an assistant, so theoretically, Tana still calling shots, but you'd have to think there is more to the arrangement than what we are privy too, because it is a risk for a coach who seems to be on an upward trajectory that was seemingly patient biding his time and not rushing up the ladder.
Wayne Smith is a bit of an anomoly though, the experience he took with him at all levels of the game cant really be compared with anyone TBF
-
I think it's pretty obvious that it's Tana's last year next year no matter how well or badly we do otherwise it's bloody strange to see why Leon MacDonald would join us if he isn't going to take the head coach role in 2020.
-
I think it's pretty obvious that it's Tana's last year next year no matter how well or badly we do otherwise it's bloody strange to see why Leon MacDonald would join us if he isn't going to take the head coach role in 2020.
@african-monkey I'll go the other way and say that if the Blues make the play-offs next year Tana will be retained.
Pretty easy to wind back the semi-final target to an "it was only a matter of losing one game - we're obviously moving in the right direction".
-
@pukunui said in Blues 2018:
Interesting to see that plenty of people are convinced a new coach will achieve instant, significant improvement yet bringing in a new assistant (a very good one) won't yield any improvements.
the top dog sets the standards, hires and fires, and their attitude trickles down through and organisation.
No-one cares what the deputy prime minister thinks of something, or if they have an issue. It's only when the big cheese sets the bar, that people respond.
Hansen was AC to Deans, and they are fundamentally different. he says you spend time biting your tongue.
Finally, it's not just 'a new head coach' but 'the right head coach'. Rennie, Henry, Smith and Deans all got results very quickly, without major personnel change if I recall correctly.
@nzzp said in Blues 2018:
Finally, it's not just 'a new head coach' but 'the right head coach'. Rennie, Henry, Smith and Deans all got results very quickly, without major personnel change if I recall correctly.
Rennie made lots of squad changes and some were very key. In a way he was a wee bit lucky that with the system back then there was a lot of quality waiting to be identified that had missed other squads because they were still being selected under promises to players making the underlying single NPC teams. A bit like how the Brumbies came together in Oz.
Henry? He started the Blues and had so many riches at his disposal that the NZRU had to send NH and Northland to the Chiefs.
Smith and Deans? Smith took the Saders from dead last to sixth before his selections and methods kicked in (alongside a big rethink in the management and running of the franchise) and Deans took over an already champion side.
-
@nzzp said in Blues 2018:
@pukunui said in Blues 2018:
Interesting to see that plenty of people are convinced a new coach will achieve instant, significant improvement yet bringing in a new assistant (a very good one) won't yield any improvements.
the top dog sets the standards, hires and fires, and their attitude trickles down through and organisation.
No-one cares what the deputy prime minister thinks of something, or if they have an issue. It's only when the big cheese sets the bar, that people respond.
Hansen was AC to Deans, and they are fundamentally different. he says you spend time biting your tongue.
Finally, it's not just 'a new head coach' but 'the right head coach'. Rennie, Henry, Smith and Deans all got results very quickly, without major personnel change if I recall correctly.
The fact is that good assistants can make a huge difference. That is why Wayne Smith was in such high demand. And why Leon himself was in high demand. There is a good chance he can help make a significant improvements of the Blues next year even if he is "under" Tana.
-
@pukunui said in Blues 2018:
Wayne Smith
He did make a big difference, but he was working with Henry, Hansen, and Rennie, who were pretty good coaches in their own right.
@tim said in Blues 2018:
@pukunui said in Blues 2018:
Wayne Smith
He did make a big difference, but he was working with Henry, Hansen, and Rennie, who were pretty good coaches in their own right.
The point was that assistant coaches can make a big difference if they are good enough and are listened to.
Plumtree and Boyd is another example. It's a pretty widely held view that Plumtree is the brains there.
Maybe Leon can be Tana's brain. -
I don't think anyone thinks changing the coach will definitely make a big difference. If we thought that after Lam and Kirwan we sure don't now.
What is definitely true is that without a new coach, nothing will get better.
The Chiefs kept hoping Foster would do the business and the Crusaders kept hoping Blackadder would, but coaches simply do not get better (without changing teams and starting afresh). Their weaknesses become more pronounced not less.
(I'd argue this is true of all bosses, not just rugby. If you don't see good results quickly, you won't see them at all. And bad bosses never turn into good ones, but they do get worse.)
