Foster, Robertson etc
-
@mariner4life Coaches wouldn't be as good overall, but there would be more players getting game time, and more room for different styles of play.
@Tim said in Foster must go:
@mariner4life Coaches wouldn't be as good overall, but there would be more players getting game time, and more room for different styles of play.
who would Peter Russel of the central vikings choose between Fakatava or Smith? the other must stay & play for the Otago Stags
-
@Tim said in Foster must go:
@mariner4life Coaches wouldn't be as good overall, but there would be more players getting game time, and more room for different styles of play.
who would Peter Russel of the central vikings choose between Fakatava or Smith? the other must stay & play for the Otago Stags
@FakatavaAllBlack said in Foster must go:
@Tim said in Foster must go:
@mariner4life Coaches wouldn't be as good overall, but there would be more players getting game time, and more room for different styles of play.
who would Peter Russel of the central vikings choose between Fakatava or Smith? the other must stay & play for the Otago Stags
Someone ban this mofo please.
-
there is the old saying that goes something like "what makes great coaches? Great players"
Maybe, if we step back and take the black glasses off, this isn't all Ian's fault. Maybe, just maybe, NZ players aren't very good any more.
Our front row players range from adequate to definitely substandard (with one possible, but as yet unproven) exception
Our 2nd rowers are putting in a shift, but do they actually contribute anything meaningful?
In the loose forwards, on the weekend perhaps our 6 & 8 had points wins over their opposite (7 clearly did not) but that is only if you ignore the fact we lost the ruck battle, and the tackle battle.
Our halfback can't kick with accuracy or depth.
there is no 10 in the country who can calmly run a game, or kick well from hand.
We don't appear to have a 12 anywhere, though playing 12 outside our erratic and unpredictable 10s must be a fucking nightmare
Our 13 is a converted winger with limitless potential but still several key questionmarks
Win seems okay
Our fullback is good under the high ball, but not much good at anything else, and loves a poor optionAnd a big issue is, who do you swap these guys out for? No one else is bashing the door down.
I'm just throwing it out there, maybe, just maybe, we lose to Ireland because they have better players than us now. And we, the NZ rugby fan, refuse to believe it because it has never been so.
@mariner4life said in Foster must go:
there is no 10 in the country who can calmly run a game, or kick well from hand.
Stacking of talent doesn't help.
Beauden, Perofeta and Zarn at the Blues whilst Highlanders have to roll out Marty Banks at 10.
Same for Suafoa - Maori game 1 showed he has enough ability to be a regular Super Rugby 6 (and maybe more) but he only got 2.5 games this year.
-
@FakatavaAllBlack said in Foster must go:
@Tim said in Foster must go:
@mariner4life Coaches wouldn't be as good overall, but there would be more players getting game time, and more room for different styles of play.
who would Peter Russel of the central vikings choose between Fakatava or Smith? the other must stay & play for the Otago Stags
Someone ban this mofo please.
@Nepia we all know how much you loved the CV and thier orange jersies....
-
@Nepia we all know how much you loved the CV and thier orange jersies....
-
@taniwharugby An orange jersey is fine ... but only if worn by athletes from the Netherlands.
@Stargazer said in Foster must go:
@taniwharugby An orange jersey is fine ... but only if worn by athletes from the Netherlands.
nether regions is close enough...
-
there is the old saying that goes something like "what makes great coaches? Great players"
Maybe, if we step back and take the black glasses off, this isn't all Ian's fault. Maybe, just maybe, NZ players aren't very good any more.
Our front row players range from adequate to definitely substandard (with one possible, but as yet unproven) exception
Our 2nd rowers are putting in a shift, but do they actually contribute anything meaningful?
In the loose forwards, on the weekend perhaps our 6 & 8 had points wins over their opposite (7 clearly did not) but that is only if you ignore the fact we lost the ruck battle, and the tackle battle.
Our halfback can't kick with accuracy or depth.
there is no 10 in the country who can calmly run a game, or kick well from hand.
We don't appear to have a 12 anywhere, though playing 12 outside our erratic and unpredictable 10s must be a fucking nightmare
Our 13 is a converted winger with limitless potential but still several key questionmarks
Win seems okay
Our fullback is good under the high ball, but not much good at anything else, and loves a poor optionAnd a big issue is, who do you swap these guys out for? No one else is bashing the door down.
I'm just throwing it out there, maybe, just maybe, we lose to Ireland because they have better players than us now. And we, the NZ rugby fan, refuse to believe it because it has never been so.
@mariner4life said in Foster must go:
I'm just throwing it out there, maybe, just maybe, we lose to Ireland because they have better players than us now. And we, the NZ rugby fan, refuse to believe it because it has never been so.
Foster must be one of the most unlucky bastards ever to live then.
He must have had crap players at the Chiefs, only for Rennie to get lucky and have brilliant ones just as he left.
And then he takes a winning AB side, albeit with a couple of issues, and all the players turn to custard just at the same time! Players who lead Super sides well, only to be headless chooks when playing for him.
Rennie actually has that issue. But his sides still have some structure, whether winning or losing. The ABs don't even know what they are doing half the time.
Foster has done with the ABs exactly what those who watched the Chiefs carefully said would happen. We said he would have favourites that he would not drop, that his selections otherwise would be baffling, that his "game plan" is basically to spread it wide and hope. And worst of all, his teams would be poorly prepared mentally . They weren't lucky guesses.
-
@Nepia we all know how much you loved the CV and thier orange jersies....
@taniwharugby said in Foster must go:
@Nepia we all know how much you loved the CV and thier orange jersies....
Ugh, someone had to design that, which meant they probably had it on their CV at some stage. :astonished_face:
-
@Tim said in Foster must go:
@mariner4life said in Foster must go:
We don't appear to have a 12 anywhere, though playing 12 outside our erratic and unpredictable 10s must be a fucking nightmare
Are there any genuinely large, fast, and powerful 12s in NZ? TUJ has potential but is almost always injured.
12 is a great microcosm of our current issue
In all reality you have 5 in teh country to choose from. Currently the Highlanders are so shit you would have to be amazing to be considered. So we are down to 4.
We picked 3 of them. Every single player selected is different. The coaches don't know what they want in a 12, so they just picked the best performing 3 (well 4, but one is also a centre).So a shallow talent pool playing a small number of systems (all very similar) and a selection committee not sold on what they want their 12 to be.
How does that create success?
@mariner4life said in Foster must go:
@Tim said in Foster must go:
@mariner4life said in Foster must go:
We don't appear to have a 12 anywhere, though playing 12 outside our erratic and unpredictable 10s must be a fucking nightmare
Are there any genuinely large, fast, and powerful 12s in NZ? TUJ has potential but is almost always injured.
12 is a great microcosm of our current issue
In all reality you have 5 in teh country to choose from. Currently the Highlanders are so shit you would have to be amazing to be considered. So we are down to 4.
We picked 3 of them. Every single player selected is different. The coaches don't know what they want in a 12, so they just picked the best performing 3 (well 4, but one is also a centre).So a shallow talent pool playing a small number of systems (all very similar) and a selection committee not sold on what they want their 12 to be.
How does that create success?
If I am not allowed to consider TUJ* then RTS, Tupea, Goodhue, Havili..and JB!'
I count 5! Do I win something? Next year, ALB**, so 2023 has six.Now that should be enough. We just need to coach them properly and choose a 10 that can work effectively with them.
[So don't consider this oddball but does Zarn Sullivan have 12 potential? He's nearly JB size!
https://www.blues.rugby/zarn-sullivan-player-profile
Oh and where is he ranked nationally as a 10? Has he played enough there? ]*So I am biased. If you are a nephew of Tana and Jerry you are basically T-Rex terrifying, tackle-crunching mofo royalty as far as I am concerned.
**I think(?) ALB has played 12 more often than 13 for the ABs? -
@taniwharugby said in Foster must go:
@Nepia we all know how much you loved the CV and thier orange jersies....
Ugh, someone had to design that, which meant they probably had it on their CV at some stage. :astonished_face:
@Nepia said in Foster must go:
@taniwharugby said in Foster must go:
@Nepia we all know how much you loved the CV and thier orange jersies....
Ugh, someone had to design that, which meant they probably had it on their CV at some stage. :astonished_face:
Where did the 50 year old model come from?
-
there is the old saying that goes something like "what makes great coaches? Great players"
Maybe, if we step back and take the black glasses off, this isn't all Ian's fault. Maybe, just maybe, NZ players aren't very good any more.
Our front row players range from adequate to definitely substandard (with one possible, but as yet unproven) exception
Our 2nd rowers are putting in a shift, but do they actually contribute anything meaningful?
In the loose forwards, on the weekend perhaps our 6 & 8 had points wins over their opposite (7 clearly did not) but that is only if you ignore the fact we lost the ruck battle, and the tackle battle.
Our halfback can't kick with accuracy or depth.
there is no 10 in the country who can calmly run a game, or kick well from hand.
We don't appear to have a 12 anywhere, though playing 12 outside our erratic and unpredictable 10s must be a fucking nightmare
Our 13 is a converted winger with limitless potential but still several key questionmarks
Win seems okay
Our fullback is good under the high ball, but not much good at anything else, and loves a poor optionAnd a big issue is, who do you swap these guys out for? No one else is bashing the door down.
I'm just throwing it out there, maybe, just maybe, we lose to Ireland because they have better players than us now. And we, the NZ rugby fan, refuse to believe it because it has never been so.
@mariner4life said in Foster must go:
there is the old saying that goes something like "what makes great coaches? Great players"
Maybe, if we step back and take the black glasses off, this isn't all Ian's fault. Maybe, just maybe, NZ players aren't very good any more.
Our front row players range from adequate to definitely substandard (with one possible, but as yet unproven) exception
Our 2nd rowers are putting in a shift, but do they actually contribute anything meaningful?
In the loose forwards, on the weekend perhaps our 6 & 8 had points wins over their opposite (7 clearly did not) but that is only if you ignore the fact we lost the ruck battle, and the tackle battle.
Our halfback can't kick with accuracy or depth.
there is no 10 in the country who can calmly run a game, or kick well from hand.
We don't appear to have a 12 anywhere, though playing 12 outside our erratic and unpredictable 10s must be a fucking nightmare
Our 13 is a converted winger with limitless potential but still several key questionmarks
Win seems okay
Our fullback is good under the high ball, but not much good at anything else, and loves a poor optionAnd a big issue is, who do you swap these guys out for? No one else is bashing the door down.
I'm just throwing it out there, maybe, just maybe, we lose to Ireland because they have better players than us now. And we, the NZ rugby fan, refuse to believe it because it has never been so.
You could be just as equally critical of any countries depth chart. If you choose to believe Keith Earls would be the first backline player picked for the All Blacks for example, then you are certainly welcome to that opinion.
-
@mariner4life said in Foster must go:
there is the old saying that goes something like "what makes great coaches? Great players"
Maybe, if we step back and take the black glasses off, this isn't all Ian's fault. Maybe, just maybe, NZ players aren't very good any more.
Our front row players range from adequate to definitely substandard (with one possible, but as yet unproven) exception
Our 2nd rowers are putting in a shift, but do they actually contribute anything meaningful?
In the loose forwards, on the weekend perhaps our 6 & 8 had points wins over their opposite (7 clearly did not) but that is only if you ignore the fact we lost the ruck battle, and the tackle battle.
Our halfback can't kick with accuracy or depth.
there is no 10 in the country who can calmly run a game, or kick well from hand.
We don't appear to have a 12 anywhere, though playing 12 outside our erratic and unpredictable 10s must be a fucking nightmare
Our 13 is a converted winger with limitless potential but still several key questionmarks
Win seems okay
Our fullback is good under the high ball, but not much good at anything else, and loves a poor optionAnd a big issue is, who do you swap these guys out for? No one else is bashing the door down.
I'm just throwing it out there, maybe, just maybe, we lose to Ireland because they have better players than us now. And we, the NZ rugby fan, refuse to believe it because it has never been so.
You could be just as equally critical of any countries depth chart. If you choose to believe Keith Earls would be the first backline player picked for the All Blacks for example, then you are certainly welcome to that opinion.
@Frye said in Foster must go:
@mariner4life said in Foster must go:
there is the old saying that goes something like "what makes great coaches? Great players"
Maybe, if we step back and take the black glasses off, this isn't all Ian's fault. Maybe, just maybe, NZ players aren't very good any more.
Our front row players range from adequate to definitely substandard (with one possible, but as yet unproven) exception
Our 2nd rowers are putting in a shift, but do they actually contribute anything meaningful?
In the loose forwards, on the weekend perhaps our 6 & 8 had points wins over their opposite (7 clearly did not) but that is only if you ignore the fact we lost the ruck battle, and the tackle battle.
Our halfback can't kick with accuracy or depth.
there is no 10 in the country who can calmly run a game, or kick well from hand.
We don't appear to have a 12 anywhere, though playing 12 outside our erratic and unpredictable 10s must be a fucking nightmare
Our 13 is a converted winger with limitless potential but still several key questionmarks
Win seems okay
Our fullback is good under the high ball, but not much good at anything else, and loves a poor optionAnd a big issue is, who do you swap these guys out for? No one else is bashing the door down.
I'm just throwing it out there, maybe, just maybe, we lose to Ireland because they have better players than us now. And we, the NZ rugby fan, refuse to believe it because it has never been so.
You could be just as equally critical of any countries depth chart. If you choose to believe Keith Earls would be the first backline player picked for the All Blacks for example, then you are certainly welcome to that opinion.
nah yeah you're right all our players are heaps awesome and it's one dude's fault entirely
Earls isn't even first choice for Ireland so good name to throw in there
Hard to make a case that the 3 best midfielders on show over the past 3 weekends weren't Ringrose, Henshaw and Aki -
there is the old saying that goes something like "what makes great coaches? Great players"
Maybe, if we step back and take the black glasses off, this isn't all Ian's fault. Maybe, just maybe, NZ players aren't very good any more.
Our front row players range from adequate to definitely substandard (with one possible, but as yet unproven) exception
Our 2nd rowers are putting in a shift, but do they actually contribute anything meaningful?
In the loose forwards, on the weekend perhaps our 6 & 8 had points wins over their opposite (7 clearly did not) but that is only if you ignore the fact we lost the ruck battle, and the tackle battle.
Our halfback can't kick with accuracy or depth.
there is no 10 in the country who can calmly run a game, or kick well from hand.
We don't appear to have a 12 anywhere, though playing 12 outside our erratic and unpredictable 10s must be a fucking nightmare
Our 13 is a converted winger with limitless potential but still several key questionmarks
Win seems okay
Our fullback is good under the high ball, but not much good at anything else, and loves a poor optionAnd a big issue is, who do you swap these guys out for? No one else is bashing the door down.
I'm just throwing it out there, maybe, just maybe, we lose to Ireland because they have better players than us now. And we, the NZ rugby fan, refuse to believe it because it has never been so.
@mariner4life said in Foster must go:
there is the old saying that goes something like "what makes great coaches? Great players"
Maybe, if we step back and take the black glasses off, this isn't all Ian's fault. Maybe, just maybe, NZ players aren't very good any more.
and yet the MAB beat the Irish in their first game. So did the ABs, then didn't change the gameplan but the Irish did, with basically the same players (sounds like coaching was a major factor!)
Our front row players range from adequate to definitely substandard (with one possible, but as yet unproven) exception
do you mean Bower? They look better when ST is there.
Our 2nd rowers are putting in a shift, but do they actually contribute anything meaningful?
Yes. Potential card and a neckroll.
In the loose forwards, on the weekend perhaps our 6 & 8 had points wins over their opposite (7 clearly did not) but that is only if you ignore the fact we lost the ruck battle, and the tackle battle.
Ok.
Our halfback can't kick with accuracy or depth.
Not fair. But accurate atmo.
there is no 10 in the country who can calmly run a game, or kick well from hand.
They can (even when playing Ireland). Just not as an AB. Hmm, wonder what is the common denominator.
We don't appear to have a 12 anywhere, though playing 12 outside our erratic and unpredictable 10s must be a fucking nightmare
We have 5+12s.
Our 13 is a converted winger with limitless potential but still several key questionmarks
Needs better coaching.
Win seems okay
You mean Will?
Our fullback is good under the high ball, but not much good at anything else, and loves a poor option
Good on conversions. Solid size.
And a big issue is, who do you swap these guys out for? No one else is bashing the door down.
15<Jordan
11/14 variety of wings (and Rieko still looks good on the wing, I'd keep Reece)
13 PUJ but no one listens to me including the Canes.
12 QT is just raw
10 Zarn/Perofeta
9..
8 Sotutu/Grace
7..
6..we've tried a few
4/5 now there is a problem. But in Foster's defence he has known about this for about 3-4 years.
1..2.3 well, we don;t choose our best hooker to start and there are promising but untried young propsI'm just throwing it out there, maybe, just maybe, we lose to Ireland because they have better players than us now. And we, the NZ rugby fan, refuse to believe it because it has never been so.
Maybe. But they def. have better coaches. And we have other coaches.
-
@Nepia we all know how much you loved the CV and thier orange jersies....
@taniwharugby said in Foster must go:
@Nepia we all know how much you loved the CV and thier orange jersies....
Otago have had a similar colour scheme too that everyone seems to be keeping quiet about
-
@taniwharugby said in Foster must go:
@Nepia we all know how much you loved the CV and thier orange jersies....
Otago have had a similar colour scheme too that everyone seems to be keeping quiet about
@Higgins at most that was an away top / change strip...but i think it was really a training top, never a home jersey
-
Looks like we closed the Tauranga borders on @mariner4life for too long. First he writes heresy about Sam Cane, now he's running a defense for Ian Foster... :astonished_face:
-
Here's my uninformed guess at what happens next. Not to be confused with what I want to happen
Robertson not being interested has been said by a few sources. I'll assume that's true and he's out of the picture.
A new squad is about to be named and the players are leaving for SA. NZR is limited by what can be done that quickly
Schmidt gets appointed as 'Director of Rugby' (a very European rugby job title) and Foster remains. The DoR is the head selector and is in charge of tactics. So despite the labels Schmidt is head coach and Foster is kind of a lead assistant coach.
Schmidt is a good technical coach who is also known to be a bit of a prick. Foster by most accounts is popular with the squad. Maybe a good cop/bad cop routine could work. However the main reason Foster remains is $'s
The assistants have the SA trip to prove their worth to Schmidt. However the reality is that Moar, Plumtree and McCleod are all gone (maybe Feek survives?). This just buys NZR more time to find replacements (Ryan, Coventry, Ellison whoever)
-
Here's my uninformed guess at what happens next. Not to be confused with what I want to happen
Robertson not being interested has been said by a few sources. I'll assume that's true and he's out of the picture.
A new squad is about to be named and the players are leaving for SA. NZR is limited by what can be done that quickly
Schmidt gets appointed as 'Director of Rugby' (a very European rugby job title) and Foster remains. The DoR is the head selector and is in charge of tactics. So despite the labels Schmidt is head coach and Foster is kind of a lead assistant coach.
Schmidt is a good technical coach who is also known to be a bit of a prick. Foster by most accounts is popular with the squad. Maybe a good cop/bad cop routine could work. However the main reason Foster remains is $'s
The assistants have the SA trip to prove their worth to Schmidt. However the reality is that Moar, Plumtree and McCleod are all gone (maybe Feek survives?). This just buys NZR more time to find replacements (Ryan, Coventry, Ellison whoever)
@Duluth said in Foster must go:
Here's my uninformed guess at what happens next. Not to be confused with what I want to happen
Robertson not being interested has been said by a few sources. I'll assume that's true and he's out of the picture.
A new squad is about to be named and the players are leaving for SA. NZR is limited by what can be done that quickly
Schmidt gets appointed as 'Director of Rugby' (a very European rugby job title) and Foster remains. The DoR is the head selector and is in charge of tactics. So despite the labels Schmidt is head coach and Foster is kind of a lead assistant coach.
Schmidt is a good technical coach who is also known to be a bit of a prick. Foster by most accounts is popular with the squad. Maybe a good cop/bad cop routine could work. However the main reason Foster remains is $'s
The assistants have the SA trip to prove their worth to Schmidt. However the reality is that Moar, Plumtree and McCleod are all gone (maybe Feek survives?). This just buys NZR more time to find replacements (Ryan, Coventry, Ellison whoever)
I hope Razor knows what he's doing. If he turns down any advances. The ABs won't keep calling
