Has Hansen gone stale?
-
@crazy-horse said in Has Hansen gone stale?:
@chester-draws stubborn selecting then? More than a few on here have questioned selections recently. Akira, SBW, NMS...
So what you're saying is that since Foster entered the set-up, selections have got worse?
NMS is odd, but at least there's no-one else really hammering down the door. The ABs have always been slow to drop, and it's better now than it used to be.
SBW is definitely one of the best 2nd-fives in the country. I'd pick him to start, if he was fully fit, because he's the right answer to rush defence.
Akira is the sort of weird selection Foster used to make. I'd love to know his part in it.
Are you young? Because current selection issues are nothing compared to the weirdness of the past. With Foster we can expect a return to fullback at centre, and then staying there long after it has been shown not to work.
@chester-draws no I am not saying the selections have gotten worse. I am saying the way you described the Chiefs (I presume you were describing them) under Foster, is similar to the way people have described the recent ABs at various times.
-
A two year extension for Hansen with the announcement with the guarantee of retirement at the conclusion is best outcome for all parties IMO.
That window gives overseas candidates an opportunity to get their affairs in order and to be available while giving promising domestic candidates a more experience.
If 2019 goes pear shaped they can (and should) make wholesale changes to the support staff. If NZ goes this route Australia would be well advised to synchronize their coaching appointment to the same cycle as NZ.
-
@canefan said in Has Hansen gone stale?:
There are some fans out there who have no idea what it was like losing in cruel and excruciating ways to Gregan/Larkham/Eales, and choking like dogs at RWCs 1995, 1999, 2003 and 2007The RWC losses were tolerable if only because in the preceeding cycle the focus wasn't solely on the RWC. The cycles before '99 and '07 had two of the best AB teams I have seen - Lions series, Grand Slams, the Bok tour. The cycle between '99 and '03 possibly had more memorable games and drama than any other.
2011 would have been gutting because it felt as though it was 'RWC or bust' from the moment Henry was reappointed. Aside from some glimmers in 2010 the entire cycle was pretty uninspired IMO.
-
@rotated Poorly constructed joke on the idea that the ABs choked (let alone like dogs) in 95 rather than got beaten by a team with the irresistible force of history (and Suzie) on its side, a superior pack and the one defence in the tournament that could keep the ABs tryless.
-
@rotated Poorly constructed joke on the idea that the ABs choked (let alone like dogs) in 95 rather than got beaten by a team with the irresistible force of history (and Suzie) on its side, a superior pack and the one defence in the tournament that could keep the ABs tryless.
@smuts said in Has Hansen gone stale?:
@rotated Poorly constructed joke on the idea that the ABs choked (let alone like dogs) in 95 rather than got beaten by a team with the irresistible force of history (and Suzie) on its side, a superior pack and the one defence in the tournament that could keep the ABs tryless.
By a drop goal. In extra time
Don't be needy smuts
-
@smuts said in Has Hansen gone stale?:
@rotated Poorly constructed joke on the idea that the ABs choked (let alone like dogs) in 95 rather than got beaten by a team with the irresistible force of history (and Suzie) on its side, a superior pack and the one defence in the tournament that could keep the ABs tryless.
By a drop goal. In extra time
Don't be needy smuts
@mariner4life said in Has Hansen gone stale?:
By a drop goal. In extra time
against players that were vomiting on the sidelines.
Whether they were poisoned is a different matter, but they were sick (for whatever reason).
-
2007, 99 & 2003 in that order are RWCs I care not to remember.
1991 we were never good enough, 1995 we were, but didnt.
1995 will sadly always have an asterix for Kiwi fans - illness, of which is undisputed.
1995 will be remembered by other fans as Kiwis claiming a conspiracy of poisoning. -
@rotated Poorly constructed joke on the idea that the ABs choked (let alone like dogs) in 95 rather than got beaten by a team with the irresistible force of history (and Suzie) on its side, a superior pack and the one defence in the tournament that could keep the ABs tryless.
@smuts said in Has Hansen gone stale?:
@rotated Poorly constructed joke on the idea that the ABs choked (let alone like dogs) in 95 rather than got beaten by a team with the irresistible force of history (and Suzie) on its side, a superior pack and the one defence in the tournament that could keep the ABs tryless.
Ah I see the choking like dogs line was canefan’s contribution thus the confusion.
1999 is the only one I’d even begin to consider as a choke and even there it was more a case of the team being understimulated rather than overstimulated and freezing.
-
@smuts said in Has Hansen gone stale?:
@rotated Poorly constructed joke on the idea that the ABs choked (let alone like dogs) in 95 rather than got beaten by a team with the irresistible force of history (and Suzie) on its side, a superior pack and the one defence in the tournament that could keep the ABs tryless.
By a drop goal. In extra time
Don't be needy smuts
@mariner4life You're sort of underlining my (admittedly weak) joke.
The ABs didn't choke. They were beaten. And yes, it was bloody close. But injury time drop goals likely wouldn't have been necessary if Bevan hadn't kept them in it by disallowing Kruger's clear try and calling Small back for a forward pass that wasn't.
-
@mariner4life said in Has Hansen gone stale?:
By a drop goal. In extra time
against players that were vomiting on the sidelines.
Whether they were poisoned is a different matter, but they were sick (for whatever reason).
-
@snowy Exactly. '95 wasn't one of the ones you choked away. The official explanation for that loss is poisoning.
-
@smuts said in Has Hansen gone stale?:
@rotated Poorly constructed joke on the idea that the ABs choked (let alone like dogs) in 95 rather than got beaten by a team with the irresistible force of history (and Suzie) on its side, a superior pack and the one defence in the tournament that could keep the ABs tryless.
Ah I see the choking like dogs line was canefan’s contribution thus the confusion.
1999 is the only one I’d even begin to consider as a choke and even there it was more a case of the team being understimulated rather than overstimulated and freezing.
@rotated Listen, I got as much mileage out of the choking bit as anyone, but I'm not sure its fair on either the ABs or their opponents. I'd argue that 1999 game was just one of those miraculous things, where the French just suddenly remembered how to create space.
-
@smuts said in Has Hansen gone stale?:
The official explanation for that loss is poisoning.
Really? Official by whom? Food poisoning, or getting sick from something you ate, doesn't have to be being deliberately "Suzied" was my point.
-
@bovidae said in Has Hansen gone stale?:
The 1996 series win in SA more than made up for the disappointment of the 1995 RWC final.
These days it is easy to forget how difficult it was to win there. '96 was our 'Ireland' moment
-
Hmmm. The ABs have lost to SA, Aus, Eng, Fra, Wales (60+ years ago), and now Ireland (who have also beaten everybody else recently). Probably forgotten someone but It is still quite an impressive record. Lions, mixed teams, etc, excluded.
I just preferred to be able to count them on one hand (Cantabs still can). Hansen has to wear that.
