Fozzie
-
I think we can all agree that when Ian Foster was at the Tron he gave the impression of being pretty clueless. The consensus has always been that nobody understands how he got a gig as part of the TWM and what he actually does for them, and that there would be rioting in the streets if he ever got near the top job.
After the Ireland game though I'm wondering if he may not be a total idiot and a charlatan after all. I'm reserving judgement for the next few weeks but I'm willing to entertain the notion he might not be a complete disaster if he is given the top job.
Convince me otherwise. Go.
-
I think we can all agree that when Ian Foster was at the Tron he gave the impression of being pretty clueless. The consensus has always been that nobody understands how he got a gig as part of the TWM and what he actually does for them, and that there would be rioting in the streets if he ever got near the top job.
After the Ireland game though I'm wondering if he may not be a total idiot and a charlatan after all. I'm reserving judgement for the next few weeks but I'm willing to entertain the notion he might not be a complete disaster if he is given the top job.
Convince me otherwise. Go.
I think we can all agree that when Ian Foster was at the Tron he gave the impression of being pretty clueless. The consensus has always been that nobody understands how he got a gig as part of the TWM and what he actually does for them, and that there would be rioting in the streets if he ever got near the top job.
After the Ireland game though I'm wondering if he may not be a total idiot and a charlatan after all. I'm reserving judgement for the next few weeks but I'm willing to entertain the notion he might not be a complete disaster if he is given the top job.
Convince me otherwise. Go.
I'm not going to convince you otherwise. I think he has been doing a great job and has a lot of respect from the players.
-
I think we can all agree that when Ian Foster was at the Tron he gave the impression of being pretty clueless. The consensus has always been that nobody understands how he got a gig as part of the TWM and what he actually does for them, and that there would be rioting in the streets if he ever got near the top job.
After the Ireland game though I'm wondering if he may not be a total idiot and a charlatan after all. I'm reserving judgement for the next few weeks but I'm willing to entertain the notion he might not be a complete disaster if he is given the top job.
Convince me otherwise. Go.
-
I would like to see some people come out in favour of him publicly who aren't Hansen. If any of cohort which retired in 2015 come out and say he is the goods then you have to give that some weight.
@Duluth bang on about Robertson. Why would you go Robertson when you could have Rennie?
-
I would like to see some people come out in favour of him publicly who aren't Hansen. If any of cohort which retired in 2015 come out and say he is the goods then you have to give that some weight.
@Duluth bang on about Robertson. Why would you go Robertson when you could have Rennie?
I would like to see some people come out in favour of him publicly who aren't Hansen. If any of cohort which retired in 2015 come out and say he is the goods then you have to give that some weight.
@Duluth bang on about Robertson. Why would you go Robertson when you could have Rennie?
Wayne Smith did support him, on the radio. Also said if you judge him based on super performance, then you ignore the potential for people to learn and grow. Hansen and Smith kept him for some time; they're pretty good judges of character.
-
Foster coached teams consistently played good technical rugby. He had some of the most exciting back lines, and even the forwards were often good.
What he did bad was :
a) select poorly. Often based on favourites -- who he wouldn't drop.
b) never develop a truly winning frame of mind -- they'd beat good sides, only to lose to bad sides the next week.The year the Chiefs made the final was pretty much pure Foster. They played some really good rugby. Only to fold very badly in the biggest game of the year. And it wasn't that they were out-matched. It was that they choked, because their coach couldn't get them to a winning place.
Dave Rennie took largely the same side and they became winners over-night. He picked a couple of great players, dropped some favourites and, crucially, got their heads in the right space.
It's not that Foster is s a bad coach. He just isn't a head coach at international level, where the physical aspects are done at the club level, and the mental aspects are vital.
If he's AB head coach, expect more of what the Chiefs delivered -- weird selections, exciting wins and truly dire losses.
-
Some people can be good assistants, less successful head coaches. Our backline looks pretty good right now
@canefan yep, thats the key part.
Some people are simply not meant to lead, but that doesnt mean they arent a massive contributer to the success of whatever they are doing.
Aside from Wayne Smith, have there been other coaches in the last 30 years or so that have left the AB coaching environment and come back (I know that Hansen has been there >12 years so 30 years when you put it in that context isnt that long)
-
It has pissed me off how Hansen has been trying to boost his profile by giving him heaps of the stuff he used to do. Good old fashioned buddy nepotism
@Machpants said in Fozzie:
It has pissed me off how Hansen has been trying to boost his profile by giving him heaps of the stuff he used to do. Good old fashioned buddy nepotism
Mmm, when nepotism works, it's just common sense - you know the capacity of the person to do the job.
-
Foster coached teams consistently played good technical rugby. He had some of the most exciting back lines, and even the forwards were often good.
What he did bad was :
a) select poorly. Often based on favourites -- who he wouldn't drop.
b) never develop a truly winning frame of mind -- they'd beat good sides, only to lose to bad sides the next week.The year the Chiefs made the final was pretty much pure Foster. They played some really good rugby. Only to fold very badly in the biggest game of the year. And it wasn't that they were out-matched. It was that they choked, because their coach couldn't get them to a winning place.
Dave Rennie took largely the same side and they became winners over-night. He picked a couple of great players, dropped some favourites and, crucially, got their heads in the right space.
It's not that Foster is s a bad coach. He just isn't a head coach at international level, where the physical aspects are done at the club level, and the mental aspects are vital.
If he's AB head coach, expect more of what the Chiefs delivered -- weird selections, exciting wins and truly dire losses.
@Chester-Draws said in Fozzie:
Foster coached teams consistently played good technical rugby. He had some of the most exciting back lines, and even the forwards were often good.
What he did bad was :
a) select poorly. Often based on favourites -- who he wouldn't drop.
b) never develop a truly winning frame of mind -- they'd beat good sides, only to lose to bad sides the next week.The year the Chiefs made the final was pretty much pure Foster. They played some really good rugby. Only to fold very badly in the biggest game of the year. And it wasn't that they were out-matched. It was that they choked, because their coach couldn't get them to a winning place.
Dave Rennie took largely the same side and they became winners over-night. He picked a couple of great players, dropped some favourites and, crucially, got their heads in the right space.
It's not that Foster is s a bad coach. He just isn't a head coach at international level, where the physical aspects are done at the club level, and the mental aspects are vital.
If he's AB head coach, expect more of what the Chiefs delivered -- weird selections, exciting wins and truly dire losses.
Some great insights from many years ago. But bullshit for today.
How about you add in the bit where he has learned and developed alongside a very good and experienced international coach and has probably learned a hell of a lot in man management. Or the bit where he has been part of a selection team that have learned some big lessons and certainly aren't now afraid of making big calls.
Can he run the ship himself? I don't know as I don't get to see his interactions with players or whether he is the odd one out at selection meetings. He will also need to find at least one more coach to work in his team.
However, I'm also not going to write him off based on how he operated many years ago considering the experiences he has had since then.
I'd be pretty pissed off if a prospective employer judged me on my performance in a role years ago that I maybe wasn't quite experienced enough to do at the highest level but have now continued and gained that experience. -
Foster coached teams consistently played good technical rugby. He had some of the most exciting back lines, and even the forwards were often good.
What he did bad was :
a) select poorly. Often based on favourites -- who he wouldn't drop.
b) never develop a truly winning frame of mind -- they'd beat good sides, only to lose to bad sides the next week.The year the Chiefs made the final was pretty much pure Foster. They played some really good rugby. Only to fold very badly in the biggest game of the year. And it wasn't that they were out-matched. It was that they choked, because their coach couldn't get them to a winning place.
Dave Rennie took largely the same side and they became winners over-night. He picked a couple of great players, dropped some favourites and, crucially, got their heads in the right space.
It's not that Foster is s a bad coach. He just isn't a head coach at international level, where the physical aspects are done at the club level, and the mental aspects are vital.
If he's AB head coach, expect more of what the Chiefs delivered -- weird selections, exciting wins and truly dire losses.
-
I remember when he was at the chiefs , they looked great in attack but it was other areas that let them down ,
I reckon shag thought the attack part looks good and grabbed him primarily for that reason
-
I remember when he was at the chiefs , they looked great in attack but it was other areas that let them down ,
I reckon shag thought the attack part looks good and grabbed him primarily for that reason
@kiwiinmelb said in Fozzie:
I remember when he was at the chiefs , they looked great in attack but it was other areas that let them down ,
I reckon shag thought the attack part looks good and grabbed him primarily for that reason
That's a good leader right there
-
@Chester-Draws said in Fozzie:
Foster coached teams consistently played good technical rugby. He had some of the most exciting back lines, and even the forwards were often good.
What he did bad was :
a) select poorly. Often based on favourites -- who he wouldn't drop.
b) never develop a truly winning frame of mind -- they'd beat good sides, only to lose to bad sides the next week.The year the Chiefs made the final was pretty much pure Foster. They played some really good rugby. Only to fold very badly in the biggest game of the year. And it wasn't that they were out-matched. It was that they choked, because their coach couldn't get them to a winning place.
Dave Rennie took largely the same side and they became winners over-night. He picked a couple of great players, dropped some favourites and, crucially, got their heads in the right space.
It's not that Foster is s a bad coach. He just isn't a head coach at international level, where the physical aspects are done at the club level, and the mental aspects are vital.
If he's AB head coach, expect more of what the Chiefs delivered -- weird selections, exciting wins and truly dire losses.
Some great insights from many years ago. But bullshit for today.
How about you add in the bit where he has learned and developed alongside a very good and experienced international coach and has probably learned a hell of a lot in man management. Or the bit where he has been part of a selection team that have learned some big lessons and certainly aren't now afraid of making big calls.
Can he run the ship himself? I don't know as I don't get to see his interactions with players or whether he is the odd one out at selection meetings. He will also need to find at least one more coach to work in his team.
However, I'm also not going to write him off based on how he operated many years ago considering the experiences he has had since then.
I'd be pretty pissed off if a prospective employer judged me on my performance in a role years ago that I maybe wasn't quite experienced enough to do at the highest level but have now continued and gained that experience.Some great insights from many years ago. But bullshit for today.
How about you add in the bit where he has learned and developed alongside a very good and experienced international coach and has probably learned a hell of a lot in man management. Or the bit where he has been part of a selection team that have learned some big lessons and certainly aren't now afraid of making big calls.
Can he run the ship himself? I don't know as I don't get to see his interactions with players or whether he is the odd one out at selection meetings. He will also need to find at least one more coach to work in his team.
However, I'm also not going to write him off based on how he operated many years ago considering the experiences he has had since then.
I'd be pretty pissed off if a prospective employer judged me on my performance in a role years ago that I maybe wasn't quite experienced enough to do at the highest level but have now continued and gained that experience.If someone is shit at a job after ten years experience, then they'll likely be shit at the job after 10 more years.
Foster didn't start with the Chiefs completely inexperienced. He had the Chiefs for eight years after that. Eight years during which they got worse, if anything. So he doesn't appear to learn much from experience.
Since then he's had heaps of experience as an assistant. Being under a good boss is absolutely no guarantee you'll learn anything, because people are who they are. (I'm currently acting head of my department -- my excellent head being on sick leave. Perhaps I'm better than I would have been, but I'm not a patch on him and never will be. I'm a natural assistant and not a leader.)
So while I'm sure Foster will be better now than he was before he was in the AB camp, the argument that all the problems will have been magicked away by hanging out with Hansen I find completely unconvincing.
-
Some great insights from many years ago. But bullshit for today.
How about you add in the bit where he has learned and developed alongside a very good and experienced international coach and has probably learned a hell of a lot in man management. Or the bit where he has been part of a selection team that have learned some big lessons and certainly aren't now afraid of making big calls.
Can he run the ship himself? I don't know as I don't get to see his interactions with players or whether he is the odd one out at selection meetings. He will also need to find at least one more coach to work in his team.
However, I'm also not going to write him off based on how he operated many years ago considering the experiences he has had since then.
I'd be pretty pissed off if a prospective employer judged me on my performance in a role years ago that I maybe wasn't quite experienced enough to do at the highest level but have now continued and gained that experience.If someone is shit at a job after ten years experience, then they'll likely be shit at the job after 10 more years.
Foster didn't start with the Chiefs completely inexperienced. He had the Chiefs for eight years after that. Eight years during which they got worse, if anything. So he doesn't appear to learn much from experience.
Since then he's had heaps of experience as an assistant. Being under a good boss is absolutely no guarantee you'll learn anything, because people are who they are. (I'm currently acting head of my department -- my excellent head being on sick leave. Perhaps I'm better than I would have been, but I'm not a patch on him and never will be. I'm a natural assistant and not a leader.)
So while I'm sure Foster will be better now than he was before he was in the AB camp, the argument that all the problems will have been magicked away by hanging out with Hansen I find completely unconvincing.
@Chester-Draws said in Fozzie:
Some great insights from many years ago. But bullshit for today.
How about you add in the bit where he has learned and developed alongside a very good and experienced international coach and has probably learned a hell of a lot in man management. Or the bit where he has been part of a selection team that have learned some big lessons and certainly aren't now afraid of making big calls.
Can he run the ship himself? I don't know as I don't get to see his interactions with players or whether he is the odd one out at selection meetings. He will also need to find at least one more coach to work in his team.
However, I'm also not going to write him off based on how he operated many years ago considering the experiences he has had since then.
I'd be pretty pissed off if a prospective employer judged me on my performance in a role years ago that I maybe wasn't quite experienced enough to do at the highest level but have now continued and gained that experience.If someone is shit at a job after ten years experience, then they'll likely be shit at the job after 10 more years.
Foster didn't start with the Chiefs completely inexperienced. He had the Chiefs for eight years after that. Eight years during which they got worse, if anything. So he doesn't appear to learn much from experience.
Since then he's had heaps of experience as an assistant. Being under a good boss is absolutely no guarantee you'll learn anything, because people are who they are. (I'm currently acting head of my department -- my excellent head being on sick leave. Perhaps I'm better than I would have been, but I'm not a patch on him and never will be. I'm a natural assistant and not a leader.)
So while I'm sure Foster will be better now than he was before he was in the AB camp, the argument that all the problems will have been magicked away by hanging out with Hansen I find completely unconvincing.
So glad you weren’t on Shag’s appointment board then.
-
I'd like to see him prove it with a lesser squad before I'd trust him as AB head coach
I'd also like to see Robertson have some success outside of Christchurch for the same reasons (happy for him to come in as an assistant now though)
