Foster, Robertson etc
-
@Catogrande said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
Ach. Regardless of “doing the right thing”, why would Foster, or anyone in his position, jump, when getting pushed give you a better payout?
I recall when the Eichelbaum report into the 2003 hosting rights balls up was released the (new not Murray McCaw) Chairman (whose name escapes me) of the NZRU (as they were) announced CEO David Rutherford had "made an offer to resign" which they accepted.
Not sure it was commented on much at the time but I took that as him saying he'll resign with a specified payout.
Nothing stopping Foz doing similar.
-
Once the envy of every rugby nation on all levels we are now like a banana republic African country.
@Billy-Tell said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
Once the envy of every rugby nation on all levels we are now like a banana republic African country.
Every second article I see 'suggested' to me on FB from Planet Rugby, Ruck, Irish Rugby, SA rugby is piling in, they be lovin' it.
-
@Catogrande said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
Ach. Regardless of “doing the right thing”, why would Foster, or anyone in his position, jump, when getting pushed give you a better payout?
I recall when the Eichelbaum report into the 2003 hosting rights balls up was released the (new not Murray McCaw) Chairman (whose name escapes me) of the NZRU (as they were) announced CEO David Rutherford had "made an offer to resign" which they accepted.
Not sure it was commented on much at the time but I took that as him saying he'll resign with a specified payout.
Nothing stopping Foz doing similar.
-
Yeah, but make sure of the payout first yeah?
@Catogrande said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
Yeah, but make sure of the payout first yeah?
Kinda what I'm saying
-
@Bones said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
I'm loving how so many were bemoaning the succession planning that led to Foster head coach, and now we've come around to saying NZR should be succession planning so that we get the best coaches.
Surely It's about the balance between getting the right bloke for the job and making sure that bloke has experience of the role and the environment to succeed?
@Victor-Meldrew How much more different is Super Rugby and the ABs when it comes to coaching. They all have assistants, managers and probably coms people. The coach just needs to coach and consider the tactics of the opposition. The ABs are just on a larger scale. Not sure why you can not plug the best guy in there, irrespective of international experience. Seems this to be a criteria, if it is at all, used to rule out potential coaches rather than a rational reason for selecting then. Thus the Foster selection is more obvious. The more I think about it the more this idea is governmental in process.
-
@Victor-Meldrew How much more different is Super Rugby and the ABs when it comes to coaching. They all have assistants, managers and probably coms people. The coach just needs to coach and consider the tactics of the opposition. The ABs are just on a larger scale. Not sure why you can not plug the best guy in there, irrespective of international experience. Seems this to be a criteria, if it is at all, used to rule out potential coaches rather than a rational reason for selecting then. Thus the Foster selection is more obvious. The more I think about it the more this idea is governmental in process.
@broughie said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew How much more different is Super Rugby and the ABs when it comes to coaching. They all have assistants, managers and probably coms people. The coach just needs to coach and consider the tactics of the opposition.
As @nzzp said, Super Rugby coach has more control overall with single access to players, spends pretty much all year with them, and has all season to develop tactics and game plan. Test coach has relatively limited time to forge a team from diverse coaching cultures, combinations, tactics and game plans. Test rugby is more intense and pressured.
The ABs are just on a larger scale.
Not sure that's right. It's not the scale, it's he level of intensity, preparation timescale limitations, pressure & quality of opposition.
Not sure why you can not plug the best guy in there, irrespective of international experience. Seems this to be a criteria, if it is at all, used to rule out potential coaches rather than a rational reason for selecting then.
You want the best guy for Test rugby so ideally you'd want that coach to have experience at that level. Not saying that should rule them out, but there's a bigger risk with a coach with zero Test experience.
Thus the Foster selection is more obvious. The more I think about it the more this idea is governmental in process.
Depends on how risk averse you want to be, I guess. NZR has set great store in continuity and that approach been successful for more than a decade with Henry & Hansen. In an ideal world, Foster would have Robertson and/or Joseph as his assistants to provide input & build experience but that didn't happen.
-
@broughie said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew How much more different is Super Rugby and the ABs when it comes to coaching. They all have assistants, managers and probably coms people. The coach just needs to coach and consider the tactics of the opposition.
As @nzzp said, Super Rugby coach has more control overall with single access to players, spends pretty much all year with them, and has all season to develop tactics and game plan. Test coach has relatively limited time to forge a team from diverse coaching cultures, combinations, tactics and game plans. Test rugby is more intense and pressured.
The ABs are just on a larger scale.
Not sure that's right. It's not the scale, it's he level of intensity, preparation timescale limitations, pressure & quality of opposition.
Not sure why you can not plug the best guy in there, irrespective of international experience. Seems this to be a criteria, if it is at all, used to rule out potential coaches rather than a rational reason for selecting then.
You want the best guy for Test rugby so ideally you'd want that coach to have experience at that level. Not saying that should rule them out, but there's a bigger risk with a coach with zero Test experience.
Thus the Foster selection is more obvious. The more I think about it the more this idea is governmental in process.
Depends on how risk averse you want to be, I guess. NZR has set great store in continuity and that approach been successful for more than a decade with Henry & Hansen. In an ideal world, Foster would have Robertson and/or Joseph as his assistants to provide input & build experience but that didn't happen.
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@broughie said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew How much more different is Super Rugby and the ABs when it comes to coaching. They all have assistants, managers and probably coms people. The coach just needs to coach and consider the tactics of the opposition.
As @nzzp said, Super Rugby coach has more control overall with single access to players, spends pretty much all year with them, and has all season to develop tactics and game plan. Test coach has relatively limited time to forge a team from diverse coaching cultures, combinations, tactics and game plans. Test rugby is more intense and pressured.
The ABs are just on a larger scale.
Not sure that's right. It's not the scale, it's he level of intensity, preparation timescale limitations, pressure & quality of opposition.
Not sure why you can not plug the best guy in there, irrespective of international experience. Seems this to be a criteria, if it is at all, used to rule out potential coaches rather than a rational reason for selecting then.
You want the best guy for Test rugby so ideally you'd want that coach to have experience at that level. Not saying that should rule them out, but there's a bigger risk with a coach with zero Test experience.
Thus the Foster selection is more obvious. The more I think about it the more this idea is governmental in process.
Depends on how risk averse you want to be, I guess. NZR has set great store in continuity and that approach been successful for more than a decade with Henry & Hansen. In an ideal world, Foster would have Robertson and/or Joseph as his assistants to provide input & build experience but that didn't happen.
Good replies. Worth remembering that Joseph/Razor/Rennie didn't want to be assistants either.
Players will tell ypu that test rugby is a different kettle of fish and they can find it intense and fast. Definitely up a notch.
Super is also a season. You might want to win every match but their is an endgame. Dropped matches can be brushed aside, players can be rested with weaker alternatives hidden and protected if required. Gameplans can be designed, trained for and implemented over a long period. It's more akin to Eddie Jones planning for England where you know the matches you need to win and target those.
ABs don't have that luxury so there is a mindset change required from the coach and the way they used to work succesfully may not be the way needed in tests. Hence the risk that a lack of international experience can bite. We saw it with Deans. -
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@broughie said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew How much more different is Super Rugby and the ABs when it comes to coaching. They all have assistants, managers and probably coms people. The coach just needs to coach and consider the tactics of the opposition.
As @nzzp said, Super Rugby coach has more control overall with single access to players, spends pretty much all year with them, and has all season to develop tactics and game plan. Test coach has relatively limited time to forge a team from diverse coaching cultures, combinations, tactics and game plans. Test rugby is more intense and pressured.
The ABs are just on a larger scale.
Not sure that's right. It's not the scale, it's he level of intensity, preparation timescale limitations, pressure & quality of opposition.
Not sure why you can not plug the best guy in there, irrespective of international experience. Seems this to be a criteria, if it is at all, used to rule out potential coaches rather than a rational reason for selecting then.
You want the best guy for Test rugby so ideally you'd want that coach to have experience at that level. Not saying that should rule them out, but there's a bigger risk with a coach with zero Test experience.
Thus the Foster selection is more obvious. The more I think about it the more this idea is governmental in process.
Depends on how risk averse you want to be, I guess. NZR has set great store in continuity and that approach been successful for more than a decade with Henry & Hansen. In an ideal world, Foster would have Robertson and/or Joseph as his assistants to provide input & build experience but that didn't happen.
Good replies. Worth remembering that Joseph/Razor/Rennie didn't want to be assistants either.
Players will tell ypu that test rugby is a different kettle of fish and they can find it intense and fast. Definitely up a notch.
Super is also a season. You might want to win every match but their is an endgame. Dropped matches can be brushed aside, players can be rested with weaker alternatives hidden and protected if required. Gameplans can be designed, trained for and implemented over a long period. It's more akin to Eddie Jones planning for England where you know the matches you need to win and target those.
ABs don't have that luxury so there is a mindset change required from the coach and the way they used to work succesfully may not be the way needed in tests. Hence the risk that a lack of international experience can bite. We saw it with Deans.@Crucial said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@broughie said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew How much more different is Super Rugby and the ABs when it comes to coaching. They all have assistants, managers and probably coms people. The coach just needs to coach and consider the tactics of the opposition.
As @nzzp said, Super Rugby coach has more control overall with single access to players, spends pretty much all year with them, and has all season to develop tactics and game plan. Test coach has relatively limited time to forge a team from diverse coaching cultures, combinations, tactics and game plans. Test rugby is more intense and pressured.
The ABs are just on a larger scale.
Not sure that's right. It's not the scale, it's he level of intensity, preparation timescale limitations, pressure & quality of opposition.
Not sure why you can not plug the best guy in there, irrespective of international experience. Seems this to be a criteria, if it is at all, used to rule out potential coaches rather than a rational reason for selecting then.
You want the best guy for Test rugby so ideally you'd want that coach to have experience at that level. Not saying that should rule them out, but there's a bigger risk with a coach with zero Test experience.
Thus the Foster selection is more obvious. The more I think about it the more this idea is governmental in process.
Depends on how risk averse you want to be, I guess. NZR has set great store in continuity and that approach been successful for more than a decade with Henry & Hansen. In an ideal world, Foster would have Robertson and/or Joseph as his assistants to provide input & build experience but that didn't happen.
Good replies. Worth remembering that Joseph/Razor/Rennie didn't want to be assistants either.
Players will tell ypu that test rugby is a different kettle of fish and they can find it intense and fast. Definitely up a notch.
Super is also a season. You might want to win every match but their is an endgame. Dropped matches can be brushed aside, players can be rested with weaker alternatives hidden and protected if required. Gameplans can be designed, trained for and implemented over a long period. It's more akin to Eddie Jones planning for England where you know the matches you need to win and target those.
ABs don't have that luxury so there is a mindset change required from the coach and the way they used to work succesfully may not be the way needed in tests. Hence the risk that a lack of international experience can bite. We saw it with Deans.Or international experience can bite
Foster has had plenty not helping him much.
Plumtree and Moar both had international experience with the AB's they didn't progress.
Mcleod has been in the AB set up for years.You can have as much international experience as you like and still be not up to the job we are seeing that now.
-
@Crucial said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@broughie said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew How much more different is Super Rugby and the ABs when it comes to coaching. They all have assistants, managers and probably coms people. The coach just needs to coach and consider the tactics of the opposition.
As @nzzp said, Super Rugby coach has more control overall with single access to players, spends pretty much all year with them, and has all season to develop tactics and game plan. Test coach has relatively limited time to forge a team from diverse coaching cultures, combinations, tactics and game plans. Test rugby is more intense and pressured.
The ABs are just on a larger scale.
Not sure that's right. It's not the scale, it's he level of intensity, preparation timescale limitations, pressure & quality of opposition.
Not sure why you can not plug the best guy in there, irrespective of international experience. Seems this to be a criteria, if it is at all, used to rule out potential coaches rather than a rational reason for selecting then.
You want the best guy for Test rugby so ideally you'd want that coach to have experience at that level. Not saying that should rule them out, but there's a bigger risk with a coach with zero Test experience.
Thus the Foster selection is more obvious. The more I think about it the more this idea is governmental in process.
Depends on how risk averse you want to be, I guess. NZR has set great store in continuity and that approach been successful for more than a decade with Henry & Hansen. In an ideal world, Foster would have Robertson and/or Joseph as his assistants to provide input & build experience but that didn't happen.
Good replies. Worth remembering that Joseph/Razor/Rennie didn't want to be assistants either.
Players will tell ypu that test rugby is a different kettle of fish and they can find it intense and fast. Definitely up a notch.
Super is also a season. You might want to win every match but their is an endgame. Dropped matches can be brushed aside, players can be rested with weaker alternatives hidden and protected if required. Gameplans can be designed, trained for and implemented over a long period. It's more akin to Eddie Jones planning for England where you know the matches you need to win and target those.
ABs don't have that luxury so there is a mindset change required from the coach and the way they used to work succesfully may not be the way needed in tests. Hence the risk that a lack of international experience can bite. We saw it with Deans.Or international experience can bite
Foster has had plenty not helping him much.
Plumtree and Moar both had international experience with the AB's they didn't progress.
Mcleod has been in the AB set up for years.You can have as much international experience as you like and still be not up to the job we are seeing that now.
@Chris said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Crucial said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@broughie said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew How much more different is Super Rugby and the ABs when it comes to coaching. They all have assistants, managers and probably coms people. The coach just needs to coach and consider the tactics of the opposition.
As @nzzp said, Super Rugby coach has more control overall with single access to players, spends pretty much all year with them, and has all season to develop tactics and game plan. Test coach has relatively limited time to forge a team from diverse coaching cultures, combinations, tactics and game plans. Test rugby is more intense and pressured.
The ABs are just on a larger scale.
Not sure that's right. It's not the scale, it's he level of intensity, preparation timescale limitations, pressure & quality of opposition.
Not sure why you can not plug the best guy in there, irrespective of international experience. Seems this to be a criteria, if it is at all, used to rule out potential coaches rather than a rational reason for selecting then.
You want the best guy for Test rugby so ideally you'd want that coach to have experience at that level. Not saying that should rule them out, but there's a bigger risk with a coach with zero Test experience.
Thus the Foster selection is more obvious. The more I think about it the more this idea is governmental in process.
Depends on how risk averse you want to be, I guess. NZR has set great store in continuity and that approach been successful for more than a decade with Henry & Hansen. In an ideal world, Foster would have Robertson and/or Joseph as his assistants to provide input & build experience but that didn't happen.
Good replies. Worth remembering that Joseph/Razor/Rennie didn't want to be assistants either.
Players will tell ypu that test rugby is a different kettle of fish and they can find it intense and fast. Definitely up a notch.
Super is also a season. You might want to win every match but their is an endgame. Dropped matches can be brushed aside, players can be rested with weaker alternatives hidden and protected if required. Gameplans can be designed, trained for and implemented over a long period. It's more akin to Eddie Jones planning for England where you know the matches you need to win and target those.
ABs don't have that luxury so there is a mindset change required from the coach and the way they used to work succesfully may not be the way needed in tests. Hence the risk that a lack of international experience can bite. We saw it with Deans.Or international experience can bite
Foster has had plenty not helping him much.
Plumtree and Moar both had international experience with the AB's they didn't progress.
Mcleod has been in the AB set up for years.You can have as much international experience as you like and still be not up to the job we are seeing that now.
I think we all get that. The discussion was about NZR being risk averse and laying out the obvious differences between test rugby and Super for a coach.
-
@Chris said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Crucial said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@broughie said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew How much more different is Super Rugby and the ABs when it comes to coaching. They all have assistants, managers and probably coms people. The coach just needs to coach and consider the tactics of the opposition.
As @nzzp said, Super Rugby coach has more control overall with single access to players, spends pretty much all year with them, and has all season to develop tactics and game plan. Test coach has relatively limited time to forge a team from diverse coaching cultures, combinations, tactics and game plans. Test rugby is more intense and pressured.
The ABs are just on a larger scale.
Not sure that's right. It's not the scale, it's he level of intensity, preparation timescale limitations, pressure & quality of opposition.
Not sure why you can not plug the best guy in there, irrespective of international experience. Seems this to be a criteria, if it is at all, used to rule out potential coaches rather than a rational reason for selecting then.
You want the best guy for Test rugby so ideally you'd want that coach to have experience at that level. Not saying that should rule them out, but there's a bigger risk with a coach with zero Test experience.
Thus the Foster selection is more obvious. The more I think about it the more this idea is governmental in process.
Depends on how risk averse you want to be, I guess. NZR has set great store in continuity and that approach been successful for more than a decade with Henry & Hansen. In an ideal world, Foster would have Robertson and/or Joseph as his assistants to provide input & build experience but that didn't happen.
Good replies. Worth remembering that Joseph/Razor/Rennie didn't want to be assistants either.
Players will tell ypu that test rugby is a different kettle of fish and they can find it intense and fast. Definitely up a notch.
Super is also a season. You might want to win every match but their is an endgame. Dropped matches can be brushed aside, players can be rested with weaker alternatives hidden and protected if required. Gameplans can be designed, trained for and implemented over a long period. It's more akin to Eddie Jones planning for England where you know the matches you need to win and target those.
ABs don't have that luxury so there is a mindset change required from the coach and the way they used to work succesfully may not be the way needed in tests. Hence the risk that a lack of international experience can bite. We saw it with Deans.Or international experience can bite
Foster has had plenty not helping him much.
Plumtree and Moar both had international experience with the AB's they didn't progress.
Mcleod has been in the AB set up for years.You can have as much international experience as you like and still be not up to the job we are seeing that now.
I think we all get that. The discussion was about NZR being risk averse and laying out the obvious differences between test rugby and Super for a coach.
@Crucial said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Chris said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Crucial said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@broughie said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew How much more different is Super Rugby and the ABs when it comes to coaching. They all have assistants, managers and probably coms people. The coach just needs to coach and consider the tactics of the opposition.
As @nzzp said, Super Rugby coach has more control overall with single access to players, spends pretty much all year with them, and has all season to develop tactics and game plan. Test coach has relatively limited time to forge a team from diverse coaching cultures, combinations, tactics and game plans. Test rugby is more intense and pressured.
The ABs are just on a larger scale.
Not sure that's right. It's not the scale, it's he level of intensity, preparation timescale limitations, pressure & quality of opposition.
Not sure why you can not plug the best guy in there, irrespective of international experience. Seems this to be a criteria, if it is at all, used to rule out potential coaches rather than a rational reason for selecting then.
You want the best guy for Test rugby so ideally you'd want that coach to have experience at that level. Not saying that should rule them out, but there's a bigger risk with a coach with zero Test experience.
Thus the Foster selection is more obvious. The more I think about it the more this idea is governmental in process.
Depends on how risk averse you want to be, I guess. NZR has set great store in continuity and that approach been successful for more than a decade with Henry & Hansen. In an ideal world, Foster would have Robertson and/or Joseph as his assistants to provide input & build experience but that didn't happen.
Good replies. Worth remembering that Joseph/Razor/Rennie didn't want to be assistants either.
Players will tell ypu that test rugby is a different kettle of fish and they can find it intense and fast. Definitely up a notch.
Super is also a season. You might want to win every match but their is an endgame. Dropped matches can be brushed aside, players can be rested with weaker alternatives hidden and protected if required. Gameplans can be designed, trained for and implemented over a long period. It's more akin to Eddie Jones planning for England where you know the matches you need to win and target those.
ABs don't have that luxury so there is a mindset change required from the coach and the way they used to work succesfully may not be the way needed in tests. Hence the risk that a lack of international experience can bite. We saw it with Deans.Or international experience can bite
Foster has had plenty not helping him much.
Plumtree and Moar both had international experience with the AB's they didn't progress.
Mcleod has been in the AB set up for years.You can have as much international experience as you like and still be not up to the job we are seeing that now.
I think we all get that. The discussion was about NZR being risk averse and laying out the obvious differences between test rugby and Super for a coach.
Ok fair enough I didn't read all the thread.
-
A big part of what made the cartel great, was the fact that all 3 had strong international experience. We have many coaches plying their trade throughout the world, some are regarded as being among the best. I don't like his whiner persona but a guy like Warren Gatland must have valuable information that the ABs could use, just like Schmidt. Then you have guys like Joseph and Brown who, despite only wanting to be the top guy in the setup, need to be harnessed if at all possible. Maybe it's an impossible task getting these guys on the same page. But the AB job is still the pinnacle for a NZ coach, and one of the biggest jobs in test rugby. The NZRFU must do a better job of trying to keep this talent engaged
-
If Robertson comes in and does like Rennie did with the Chiefs, there may be some red faces around here.
Sure he might not be able to turn the ABs around.
But some of the people here seem to regard that as also meaning he won't. Like they actually want him not to do so.
-
If Robertson comes in and does like Rennie did with the Chiefs, there may be some red faces around here.
Sure he might not be able to turn the ABs around.
But some of the people here seem to regard that as also meaning he won't. Like they actually want him not to do so.
@Chester-Draws said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
If Robertson comes in and does like Rennie did with the Chiefs, there may be some red faces around here.
Sure he might not be able to turn the ABs around.
But some of the people here seem to regard that as also meaning he won't. Like they actually want him not to do so.
Seems to have been a bit if that over the last couple of years.
-
If Robertson comes in and does like Rennie did with the Chiefs, there may be some red faces around here.
Sure he might not be able to turn the ABs around.
But some of the people here seem to regard that as also meaning he won't. Like they actually want him not to do so.
@Chester-Draws said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
If Robertson comes in and does like Rennie did with the Chiefs, there may be some red faces around here.
Sure he might not be able to turn the ABs around.
But some of the people here seem to regard that as also meaning he won't. Like they actually want him not to do so.
It will improve his chances if he takes on an advisor with international experience, like how Rennie had Smith
-
For all the talk of wanting a head coach with international experience, Foster had none at all. So NZR already went against their own ethos of wanting that before taking on the top job.
They really fucked up appointing and then extending Foster. Now their best option doesn't want to take on a head coaching position, and the next best has no experience at test level so is a risk again.
TBH Robinson really need to fall on his sword for this mess.
-
For all the talk of wanting a head coach with international experience, Foster had none at all. So NZR already went against their own ethos of wanting that before taking on the top job.
They really fucked up appointing and then extending Foster. Now their best option doesn't want to take on a head coaching position, and the next best has no experience at test level so is a risk again.
TBH Robinson really need to fall on his sword for this mess.
@No-Quarter yep, this all falls on those that extended his contract last year, without putting anything in there in case what has happened, happened.
I can kinda understand why he was given an extension though, covid and all, but the timing of it, and the further fall we have seen with zero improvement shows they fucked up.
-
If Robertson comes in and does like Rennie did with the Chiefs, there may be some red faces around here.
Sure he might not be able to turn the ABs around.
But some of the people here seem to regard that as also meaning he won't. Like they actually want him not to do so.
@Chester-Draws said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
If Robertson comes in and does like Rennie did with the Chiefs, there may be some red faces around here.
Sure he might not be able to turn the ABs around.
But some of the people here seem to regard that as also meaning he won't. Like they actually want him not to do so.
You're getting a completely different tone from this thread than I am.
-
@Victor-Meldrew How much more different is Super Rugby and the ABs when it comes to coaching. They all have assistants, managers and probably coms people. The coach just needs to coach and consider the tactics of the opposition. The ABs are just on a larger scale. Not sure why you can not plug the best guy in there, irrespective of international experience. Seems this to be a criteria, if it is at all, used to rule out potential coaches rather than a rational reason for selecting then. Thus the Foster selection is more obvious. The more I think about it the more this idea is governmental in process.
@broughie said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew How much more different is Super Rugby and the ABs when it comes to coaching. They all have assistants, managers and probably coms people. The coach just needs to coach and consider the tactics of the opposition. The ABs are just on a larger scale. Not sure why you can not plug the best guy in there, irrespective of international experience. Seems this to be a criteria, if it is at all, used to rule out potential coaches rather than a rational reason for selecting then. Thus the Foster selection is more obvious. The more I think about it the more this idea is governmental in process.
I thought it was something used as a post hoc justification for choosing Henry etc when up against Deans. Then, because of that, it all of a sudden became official criteria, together with having to present your proposed coaching group
-
Ach. Regardless of “doing the right thing”, why would Foster, or anyone in his position, jump, when getting pushed give you a better payout?
@Catogrande said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
Ach. Regardless of “doing the right thing”, why would Foster, or anyone in his position, jump, when getting pushed give you a better payout?
Yep, I will back Foster on this one. Want him gone? Fire him. And explain it to your shiny new sponsors why millions of $ are being spent on payouts over bad hires (Brad Mooar and John Plumtree included)?
This mess is not Fosters fault. He is not good enough and that is ok. The people who hired him are at fault for putting someone clearly out of his depth there. Foster by every single account is a genuine good fluffybunny and no doubt is a fine person to have as part of the coaching set-up as an assistant or whatever, but it was clear very early on he is not up to the top job. He was rehired on the back of poor performances, this is all NZRU.
