Foster, Robertson etc
-
If people really think the whole squad is behind Foster then why are they not following game plans as some people on here have alluded to.
Why is the team not gelling and disconnected, because not everyone is on the same page, some don't believe in the plans and tactics if they did everyone would buy into and execute it and we would be playing better.
Because we look like deer in the headlights, disjointed,not connecting in attack or defence and panicky, all down to not believing in what they are sent out to do.Everything then breaks down and we fall apart going away from tactics and the so called game plan and we get the mess we have now on the field.
If people really think the whole squad is behind Foster then why are they not following game plans as some people on here have alluded to.
Because key players are panicking and going to what works for them at other levels out of instinct.
Is that a case of trying to change a leopard's spots or a case of not having the ability to get them to change? Probably a bit of both I would say.
Couple that with a situation of not having depth in options and you get stuck between using a gameplan that the players can play instinctively (but you know won't win) and trying to change them (but you know they won't change).
Finding a winning game using the talent available is the golden ticket. A limited but effective plan with limited players is better than trying to change players that struggle to play your plan.
I think they recognise that, hence things like a preference for Frizzel over Ioane or Havili over RTS but in the key area of playmakers they don't trust Perofeta, haven't selected DMac and don't seem to have searched high and low for a controlling 10. -
@Joans-Town-Jones said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
They look a million $ in the red and black
Big difference between Super Rugby and Test Rugby though.
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:
They look a million $ in the red and black
Big difference between Super Rugby and Test Rugby though.
Indeed. I guess when super form is being touted as reason for selecting player x y and z, that should be ignored too…
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
Most worrying to me from the above would be if the NZR won't appoint Robertson because it would cost too much to use a big broom.
As long as the current coaches aren't appointed beyond next year's RWC it shouldn't be a huge expense. But this means making a firm decision as to who they want moving forward. If Robertson (and it should be) then find out soon what coaching team he wants. But I can see what an issue this creates. The current coaches know they are history after next year ...
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
Most worrying to me from the above would be if the NZR won't appoint Robertson because it would cost too much to use a big broom.
As long as the current coaches aren't appointed beyond next year's RWC it shouldn't be a huge expense. But this means making a firm decision as to who they want moving forward. If Robertson (and it should be) then find out soon what coaching team he wants. But I can see what an issue this creates. The current coaches know they are history after next year ...
a bit hard on Jason Ryan and Joe Schmidt!
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
Most worrying to me from the above would be if the NZR won't appoint Robertson because it would cost too much to use a big broom.
As long as the current coaches aren't appointed beyond next year's RWC it shouldn't be a huge expense. But this means making a firm decision as to who they want moving forward. If Robertson (and it should be) then find out soon what coaching team he wants. But I can see what an issue this creates. The current coaches know they are history after next year ...
a bit hard on Jason Ryan and Joe Schmidt!
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
Most worrying to me from the above would be if the NZR won't appoint Robertson because it would cost too much to use a big broom.
As long as the current coaches aren't appointed beyond next year's RWC it shouldn't be a huge expense. But this means making a firm decision as to who they want moving forward. If Robertson (and it should be) then find out soon what coaching team he wants. But I can see what an issue this creates. The current coaches know they are history after next year ...
a bit hard on Jason Ryan and Joe Schmidt!
How long were they appointed for. Robertson would very likely want Ryan but maybe not Schmidt
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
Most worrying to me from the above would be if the NZR won't appoint Robertson because it would cost too much to use a big broom.
As long as the current coaches aren't appointed beyond next year's RWC it shouldn't be a huge expense. But this means making a firm decision as to who they want moving forward. If Robertson (and it should be) then find out soon what coaching team he wants. But I can see what an issue this creates. The current coaches know they are history after next year ...
a bit hard on Jason Ryan and Joe Schmidt!
How long were they appointed for. Robertson would very likely want Ryan but maybe not Schmidt
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
Most worrying to me from the above would be if the NZR won't appoint Robertson because it would cost too much to use a big broom.
As long as the current coaches aren't appointed beyond next year's RWC it shouldn't be a huge expense. But this means making a firm decision as to who they want moving forward. If Robertson (and it should be) then find out soon what coaching team he wants. But I can see what an issue this creates. The current coaches know they are history after next year ...
a bit hard on Jason Ryan and Joe Schmidt!
How long were they appointed for. Robertson would very likely want Ryan but maybe not Schmidt
No way they would have anything longer than foster.
Then again this is NZR...
-
the problem with looking at Super rugby as a player provider and only looking at the Crusaders is
20% of our pro players are at the Highlanders, a team that went 4-10 in a comp containing MP, Drua, Force and Rebels
Another 20% are at the Canes who at least managed 8 wins.
The Chiefs have another 20% and they somehow went 10-4 without a decent outside back, a decent 10, and losing ALB.The fact is, compared to 15 years ago, the standard of player you had to be to get a Super rugby contract has fallen dramatically.
This in no way absolves the current head coach, who is obviously fucked.
@mariner4life said in Foster:
the problem with looking at Super rugby as a player provider and only looking at the Crusaders is
20% of our pro players are at the Highlanders, a team that went 4-10 in a comp containing MP, Drua, Force and Rebels
Another 20% are at the Canes who at least managed 8 wins.
The Chiefs have another 20% and they somehow went 10-4 without a decent outside back, a decent 10, and losing ALB.The fact is, compared to 15 years ago, the standard of player you had to be to get a Super rugby contract has fallen dramatically.
This in no way absolves the current head coach, who is obviously fucked.
Who said anything about looking at the Crusaders only? The point is being made is simply, the players from the Crusaders go from being champions in red in black to looking like they've never seen a rugby ball in the ABs. If we don't select from Super Rugby, where do we select from?
-
@mariner4life said in Foster:
the problem with looking at Super rugby as a player provider and only looking at the Crusaders is
20% of our pro players are at the Highlanders, a team that went 4-10 in a comp containing MP, Drua, Force and Rebels
Another 20% are at the Canes who at least managed 8 wins.
The Chiefs have another 20% and they somehow went 10-4 without a decent outside back, a decent 10, and losing ALB.The fact is, compared to 15 years ago, the standard of player you had to be to get a Super rugby contract has fallen dramatically.
This in no way absolves the current head coach, who is obviously fucked.
Who said anything about looking at the Crusaders only? The point is being made is simply, the players from the Crusaders go from being champions in red in black to looking like they've never seen a rugby ball in the ABs. If we don't select from Super Rugby, where do we select from?
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@mariner4life said in Foster:
the problem with looking at Super rugby as a player provider and only looking at the Crusaders is
20% of our pro players are at the Highlanders, a team that went 4-10 in a comp containing MP, Drua, Force and Rebels
Another 20% are at the Canes who at least managed 8 wins.
The Chiefs have another 20% and they somehow went 10-4 without a decent outside back, a decent 10, and losing ALB.The fact is, compared to 15 years ago, the standard of player you had to be to get a Super rugby contract has fallen dramatically.
This in no way absolves the current head coach, who is obviously fucked.
Who said anything about looking at the Crusaders only? The point is being made is simply, the players from the Crusaders go from being champions in red in black to looking like they've never seen a rugby ball in the ABs. If we don't select from Super Rugby, where do we select from?
Maybe the mentality is all wrong, they have overachieved in the Crusader environment so they feel they deserve the black jersey. Your average Aussie Super Rugby player goes into sixth gear when he pulls on his green and gold jersey and I suspect same for the Argies when they play for their country
-
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@mariner4life said in Foster:
the problem with looking at Super rugby as a player provider and only looking at the Crusaders is
20% of our pro players are at the Highlanders, a team that went 4-10 in a comp containing MP, Drua, Force and Rebels
Another 20% are at the Canes who at least managed 8 wins.
The Chiefs have another 20% and they somehow went 10-4 without a decent outside back, a decent 10, and losing ALB.The fact is, compared to 15 years ago, the standard of player you had to be to get a Super rugby contract has fallen dramatically.
This in no way absolves the current head coach, who is obviously fucked.
Who said anything about looking at the Crusaders only? The point is being made is simply, the players from the Crusaders go from being champions in red in black to looking like they've never seen a rugby ball in the ABs. If we don't select from Super Rugby, where do we select from?
Maybe the mentality is all wrong, they have overachieved in the Crusader environment so they feel they deserve the black jersey. Your average Aussie Super Rugby player goes into sixth gear when he pulls on his green and gold jersey and I suspect same for the Argies when they play for their country
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@mariner4life said in Foster:
the problem with looking at Super rugby as a player provider and only looking at the Crusaders is
20% of our pro players are at the Highlanders, a team that went 4-10 in a comp containing MP, Drua, Force and Rebels
Another 20% are at the Canes who at least managed 8 wins.
The Chiefs have another 20% and they somehow went 10-4 without a decent outside back, a decent 10, and losing ALB.The fact is, compared to 15 years ago, the standard of player you had to be to get a Super rugby contract has fallen dramatically.
This in no way absolves the current head coach, who is obviously fucked.
Who said anything about looking at the Crusaders only? The point is being made is simply, the players from the Crusaders go from being champions in red in black to looking like they've never seen a rugby ball in the ABs. If we don't select from Super Rugby, where do we select from?
Maybe the mentality is all wrong, they have overachieved in the Crusader environment so they feel they deserve the black jersey.
I find that hard to believe.
-
@taniwharugby said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew I think that coach of the National side needs to work with the Super coaches, working how to best prep players for the step up, while the super coach balances this with his aspirations or winning the comp.
The fact that our front row forwards circa 2015 were pretty much the envy of the world, where had had skillful players that were strong at thier core roles...ffd a few years and our skills started to drop off, as did our scrum dominance, ffd more years, losing the regular games with SA Super teams and now we are selecting guys who we are told are thier for scrummaging, and they do little else, and even at scrum time arent much cop so we are injecting young players again with skillsets we used to have in abundance.
Fozzie has been part of the set up for what, a decade now...he is at the pointy end of things, in terms of seeing the game change, innovation, yet in his time he hasnt managed to notice the decline in these other skills so crucial to the modern game, along with a slide in the core skills of props too, and help look to rectify it down the chain, until it has become such a big problem.
That 'hands off' approach to Super served us well in the past as it brought different ideas into the mix. I'm not so sure that under the current Super structure that it works as well.
A balance between the two would be good. Something like directing Super coaches to set plans within a range (eg an emphasis on rush defence) so that things aren't new when you reach the ABs@taniwharugby said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew I think that coach of the National side needs to work with the Super coaches, working how to best prep players for the step up, while the super coach balances this with his aspirations or winning the comp.
The fact that our front row forwards circa 2015 were pretty much the envy of the world, where had had skillful players that were strong at thier core roles...ffd a few years and our skills started to drop off, as did our scrum dominance, ffd more years, losing the regular games with SA Super teams and now we are selecting guys who we are told are thier for scrummaging, and they do little else, and even at scrum time arent much cop so we are injecting young players again with skillsets we used to have in abundance.
Fozzie has been part of the set up for what, a decade now...he is at the pointy end of things, in terms of seeing the game change, innovation, yet in his time he hasnt managed to notice the decline in these other skills so crucial to the modern game, along with a slide in the core skills of props too, and help look to rectify it down the chain, until it has become such a big problem.
That 'hands off' approach to Super served us well in the past as it brought different ideas into the mix. I'm not so sure that under the current Super structure that it works as well.
A balance between the two would be good. Something like directing Super coaches to set plans within a range (eg an emphasis on rush defence) so that things aren't new when you reach the ABsI'd rather it was more of a focus on skills, rather than game plans. I.e. feedback comes through from the AB head coaches that there is a general lack of skill under the high ball so Super coaches, academy coaches etc all know areas were they can improve their players to help them get high honours. I believe something like this must have happened after 2009, when all of the sudden we back 3 players at all levels who were comfortable under the high ball.
-
@taniwharugby said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew I think that coach of the National side needs to work with the Super coaches, working how to best prep players for the step up, while the super coach balances this with his aspirations or winning the comp.
The fact that our front row forwards circa 2015 were pretty much the envy of the world, where had had skillful players that were strong at thier core roles...ffd a few years and our skills started to drop off, as did our scrum dominance, ffd more years, losing the regular games with SA Super teams and now we are selecting guys who we are told are thier for scrummaging, and they do little else, and even at scrum time arent much cop so we are injecting young players again with skillsets we used to have in abundance.
Fozzie has been part of the set up for what, a decade now...he is at the pointy end of things, in terms of seeing the game change, innovation, yet in his time he hasnt managed to notice the decline in these other skills so crucial to the modern game, along with a slide in the core skills of props too, and help look to rectify it down the chain, until it has become such a big problem.
That 'hands off' approach to Super served us well in the past as it brought different ideas into the mix. I'm not so sure that under the current Super structure that it works as well.
A balance between the two would be good. Something like directing Super coaches to set plans within a range (eg an emphasis on rush defence) so that things aren't new when you reach the ABsI'd rather it was more of a focus on skills, rather than game plans. I.e. feedback comes through from the AB head coaches that there is a general lack of skill under the high ball so Super coaches, academy coaches etc all know areas were they can improve their players to help them get high honours. I believe something like this must have happened after 2009, when all of the sudden we back 3 players at all levels who were comfortable under the high ball.
@taniwharugby said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew I think that coach of the National side needs to work with the Super coaches, working how to best prep players for the step up, while the super coach balances this with his aspirations or winning the comp.
The fact that our front row forwards circa 2015 were pretty much the envy of the world, where had had skillful players that were strong at thier core roles...ffd a few years and our skills started to drop off, as did our scrum dominance, ffd more years, losing the regular games with SA Super teams and now we are selecting guys who we are told are thier for scrummaging, and they do little else, and even at scrum time arent much cop so we are injecting young players again with skillsets we used to have in abundance.
Fozzie has been part of the set up for what, a decade now...he is at the pointy end of things, in terms of seeing the game change, innovation, yet in his time he hasnt managed to notice the decline in these other skills so crucial to the modern game, along with a slide in the core skills of props too, and help look to rectify it down the chain, until it has become such a big problem.
That 'hands off' approach to Super served us well in the past as it brought different ideas into the mix. I'm not so sure that under the current Super structure that it works as well.
A balance between the two would be good. Something like directing Super coaches to set plans within a range (eg an emphasis on rush defence) so that things aren't new when you reach the ABsI'd rather it was more of a focus on skills, rather than game plans. I.e. feedback comes through from the AB head coaches that there is a general lack of skill under the high ball so Super coaches, academy coaches etc all know areas were they can improve their players to help them get high honours. I believe something like this must have happened after 2009, when all of the sudden we back 3 players at all levels who were comfortable under the high ball.
Mick the kick seems to have been criminally underrated. Our team has been on a downhill with respect to skills (and especially kicking) since he left.
The other point that brings up is that the best coaches for this AB team may not be kiwis. We need the best in the world and a non kiwi coach / asst. coach may be a needed addition.
-
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@mariner4life said in Foster:
the problem with looking at Super rugby as a player provider and only looking at the Crusaders is
20% of our pro players are at the Highlanders, a team that went 4-10 in a comp containing MP, Drua, Force and Rebels
Another 20% are at the Canes who at least managed 8 wins.
The Chiefs have another 20% and they somehow went 10-4 without a decent outside back, a decent 10, and losing ALB.The fact is, compared to 15 years ago, the standard of player you had to be to get a Super rugby contract has fallen dramatically.
This in no way absolves the current head coach, who is obviously fucked.
Who said anything about looking at the Crusaders only? The point is being made is simply, the players from the Crusaders go from being champions in red in black to looking like they've never seen a rugby ball in the ABs. If we don't select from Super Rugby, where do we select from?
Maybe the mentality is all wrong, they have overachieved in the Crusader environment so they feel they deserve the black jersey. Your average Aussie Super Rugby player goes into sixth gear when he pulls on his green and gold jersey and I suspect same for the Argies when they play for their country
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@mariner4life said in Foster:
the problem with looking at Super rugby as a player provider and only looking at the Crusaders is
20% of our pro players are at the Highlanders, a team that went 4-10 in a comp containing MP, Drua, Force and Rebels
Another 20% are at the Canes who at least managed 8 wins.
The Chiefs have another 20% and they somehow went 10-4 without a decent outside back, a decent 10, and losing ALB.The fact is, compared to 15 years ago, the standard of player you had to be to get a Super rugby contract has fallen dramatically.
This in no way absolves the current head coach, who is obviously fucked.
Who said anything about looking at the Crusaders only? The point is being made is simply, the players from the Crusaders go from being champions in red in black to looking like they've never seen a rugby ball in the ABs. If we don't select from Super Rugby, where do we select from?
Maybe the mentality is all wrong, they have overachieved in the Crusader environment so they feel they deserve the black jersey. Your average Aussie Super Rugby player goes into sixth gear when he pulls on his green and gold jersey and I suspect same for the Argies when they play for their country
So what's the solution? Under-perform for the purpose of being selected to win in the ABs environment?
-
@mariner4life said in Foster:
the problem with looking at Super rugby as a player provider and only looking at the Crusaders is
20% of our pro players are at the Highlanders, a team that went 4-10 in a comp containing MP, Drua, Force and Rebels
Another 20% are at the Canes who at least managed 8 wins.
The Chiefs have another 20% and they somehow went 10-4 without a decent outside back, a decent 10, and losing ALB.The fact is, compared to 15 years ago, the standard of player you had to be to get a Super rugby contract has fallen dramatically.
This in no way absolves the current head coach, who is obviously fucked.
Who said anything about looking at the Crusaders only? The point is being made is simply, the players from the Crusaders go from being champions in red in black to looking like they've never seen a rugby ball in the ABs. If we don't select from Super Rugby, where do we select from?
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@mariner4life said in Foster:
the problem with looking at Super rugby as a player provider and only looking at the Crusaders is
20% of our pro players are at the Highlanders, a team that went 4-10 in a comp containing MP, Drua, Force and Rebels
Another 20% are at the Canes who at least managed 8 wins.
The Chiefs have another 20% and they somehow went 10-4 without a decent outside back, a decent 10, and losing ALB.The fact is, compared to 15 years ago, the standard of player you had to be to get a Super rugby contract has fallen dramatically.
This in no way absolves the current head coach, who is obviously fucked.
Who said anything about looking at the Crusaders only? The point is being made is simply, the players from the Crusaders go from being champions in red in black to looking like they've never seen a rugby ball in the ABs. If we don't select from Super Rugby, where do we select from?
Then they are mentally weak and not able the take the step up to test rugby. Super rugby is their natural ceiling.
Happened to plenty of players before.
-
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@mariner4life said in Foster:
the problem with looking at Super rugby as a player provider and only looking at the Crusaders is
20% of our pro players are at the Highlanders, a team that went 4-10 in a comp containing MP, Drua, Force and Rebels
Another 20% are at the Canes who at least managed 8 wins.
The Chiefs have another 20% and they somehow went 10-4 without a decent outside back, a decent 10, and losing ALB.The fact is, compared to 15 years ago, the standard of player you had to be to get a Super rugby contract has fallen dramatically.
This in no way absolves the current head coach, who is obviously fucked.
Who said anything about looking at the Crusaders only? The point is being made is simply, the players from the Crusaders go from being champions in red in black to looking like they've never seen a rugby ball in the ABs. If we don't select from Super Rugby, where do we select from?
Then they are mentally weak and not able the take the step up to test rugby. Super rugby is their natural ceiling.
Happened to plenty of players before.
@MajorRage said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@mariner4life said in Foster:
the problem with looking at Super rugby as a player provider and only looking at the Crusaders is
20% of our pro players are at the Highlanders, a team that went 4-10 in a comp containing MP, Drua, Force and Rebels
Another 20% are at the Canes who at least managed 8 wins.
The Chiefs have another 20% and they somehow went 10-4 without a decent outside back, a decent 10, and losing ALB.The fact is, compared to 15 years ago, the standard of player you had to be to get a Super rugby contract has fallen dramatically.
This in no way absolves the current head coach, who is obviously fucked.
Who said anything about looking at the Crusaders only? The point is being made is simply, the players from the Crusaders go from being champions in red in black to looking like they've never seen a rugby ball in the ABs. If we don't select from Super Rugby, where do we select from?
Then they are mentally weak and not able the take the step up to test rugby. Super rugby is their natural ceiling.
Happened to plenty of players before.
There's not 23 players in NZ that can make the step up? I get one or two but we're talking about an entire squad. If they are mentally weak, what's the common denominator?
-
@MajorRage said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@mariner4life said in Foster:
the problem with looking at Super rugby as a player provider and only looking at the Crusaders is
20% of our pro players are at the Highlanders, a team that went 4-10 in a comp containing MP, Drua, Force and Rebels
Another 20% are at the Canes who at least managed 8 wins.
The Chiefs have another 20% and they somehow went 10-4 without a decent outside back, a decent 10, and losing ALB.The fact is, compared to 15 years ago, the standard of player you had to be to get a Super rugby contract has fallen dramatically.
This in no way absolves the current head coach, who is obviously fucked.
Who said anything about looking at the Crusaders only? The point is being made is simply, the players from the Crusaders go from being champions in red in black to looking like they've never seen a rugby ball in the ABs. If we don't select from Super Rugby, where do we select from?
Then they are mentally weak and not able the take the step up to test rugby. Super rugby is their natural ceiling.
Happened to plenty of players before.
There's not 23 players in NZ that can make the step up? I get one or two but we're talking about an entire squad. If they are mentally weak, what's the common denominator?
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@MajorRage said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@mariner4life said in Foster:
the problem with looking at Super rugby as a player provider and only looking at the Crusaders is
20% of our pro players are at the Highlanders, a team that went 4-10 in a comp containing MP, Drua, Force and Rebels
Another 20% are at the Canes who at least managed 8 wins.
The Chiefs have another 20% and they somehow went 10-4 without a decent outside back, a decent 10, and losing ALB.The fact is, compared to 15 years ago, the standard of player you had to be to get a Super rugby contract has fallen dramatically.
This in no way absolves the current head coach, who is obviously fucked.
Who said anything about looking at the Crusaders only? The point is being made is simply, the players from the Crusaders go from being champions in red in black to looking like they've never seen a rugby ball in the ABs. If we don't select from Super Rugby, where do we select from?
Then they are mentally weak and not able the take the step up to test rugby. Super rugby is their natural ceiling.
Happened to plenty of players before.
There's not 23 players in NZ that can make the step up? I get one or two but we're talking about an entire squad. If they are mentally weak, what's the common denominator?
I've been pretty clear all the way through my thoughts on Fosters appointment.
However, if players are awesome under Robertson, but shit under Foster, I struggle to put that entire blame at Foster, given that he is the coach at the higher level of rugby.
We have many problems at the moment, of which Foster is bearing the brunt of them all. Reality is that if Cantab's can't play good underneath him, then he shouldn't select them.
-
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@MajorRage said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@mariner4life said in Foster:
the problem with looking at Super rugby as a player provider and only looking at the Crusaders is
20% of our pro players are at the Highlanders, a team that went 4-10 in a comp containing MP, Drua, Force and Rebels
Another 20% are at the Canes who at least managed 8 wins.
The Chiefs have another 20% and they somehow went 10-4 without a decent outside back, a decent 10, and losing ALB.The fact is, compared to 15 years ago, the standard of player you had to be to get a Super rugby contract has fallen dramatically.
This in no way absolves the current head coach, who is obviously fucked.
Who said anything about looking at the Crusaders only? The point is being made is simply, the players from the Crusaders go from being champions in red in black to looking like they've never seen a rugby ball in the ABs. If we don't select from Super Rugby, where do we select from?
Then they are mentally weak and not able the take the step up to test rugby. Super rugby is their natural ceiling.
Happened to plenty of players before.
There's not 23 players in NZ that can make the step up? I get one or two but we're talking about an entire squad. If they are mentally weak, what's the common denominator?
I've been pretty clear all the way through my thoughts on Fosters appointment.
However, if players are awesome under Robertson, but shit under Foster, I struggle to put that entire blame at Foster, given that he is the coach at the higher level of rugby.
We have many problems at the moment, of which Foster is bearing the brunt of them all. Reality is that if Cantab's can't play good underneath him, then he shouldn't select them.
@MajorRage said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@MajorRage said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@mariner4life said in Foster:
the problem with looking at Super rugby as a player provider and only looking at the Crusaders is
20% of our pro players are at the Highlanders, a team that went 4-10 in a comp containing MP, Drua, Force and Rebels
Another 20% are at the Canes who at least managed 8 wins.
The Chiefs have another 20% and they somehow went 10-4 without a decent outside back, a decent 10, and losing ALB.The fact is, compared to 15 years ago, the standard of player you had to be to get a Super rugby contract has fallen dramatically.
This in no way absolves the current head coach, who is obviously fucked.
Who said anything about looking at the Crusaders only? The point is being made is simply, the players from the Crusaders go from being champions in red in black to looking like they've never seen a rugby ball in the ABs. If we don't select from Super Rugby, where do we select from?
Then they are mentally weak and not able the take the step up to test rugby. Super rugby is their natural ceiling.
Happened to plenty of players before.
There's not 23 players in NZ that can make the step up? I get one or two but we're talking about an entire squad. If they are mentally weak, what's the common denominator?
I've been pretty clear all the way through my thoughts on Fosters appointment.
However, if players are awesome under Robertson, but shit under Foster, I struggle to put that entire blame at Foster, given that he is the coach at the higher level of rugby.
We have many problems at the moment, of which Foster is bearing the brunt of them all. Reality is that if Cantab's can't play good underneath him, then he shouldn't select them.
We have many problems at the moment, of which Foster is bearing the brunt of them all. Reality is that if Cantab's can't play good underneath him, then he shouldn't select them.
Interesting the decline in AB rugby started late 2016, was in fast forward in 2019 and is now in overdrive but its only the Cantabs that are playing shit under Foster and not for a proven winning coach. So, the solution is to select players underperforming from teams with less of a record and hope they stand up? Its clear as fucken day late era Hansen and Foster have fucked this team into oblivion. As the head fucking coach it is your responsibility to get the team to gel. 3 fucking years of this depressing shit. And it hasn't hit the bottom yet. We still have Japan, Scotland and the Bled to lose. But sure, thats on the Cantabs. -
@MajorRage said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@MajorRage said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@mariner4life said in Foster:
the problem with looking at Super rugby as a player provider and only looking at the Crusaders is
20% of our pro players are at the Highlanders, a team that went 4-10 in a comp containing MP, Drua, Force and Rebels
Another 20% are at the Canes who at least managed 8 wins.
The Chiefs have another 20% and they somehow went 10-4 without a decent outside back, a decent 10, and losing ALB.The fact is, compared to 15 years ago, the standard of player you had to be to get a Super rugby contract has fallen dramatically.
This in no way absolves the current head coach, who is obviously fucked.
Who said anything about looking at the Crusaders only? The point is being made is simply, the players from the Crusaders go from being champions in red in black to looking like they've never seen a rugby ball in the ABs. If we don't select from Super Rugby, where do we select from?
Then they are mentally weak and not able the take the step up to test rugby. Super rugby is their natural ceiling.
Happened to plenty of players before.
There's not 23 players in NZ that can make the step up? I get one or two but we're talking about an entire squad. If they are mentally weak, what's the common denominator?
I've been pretty clear all the way through my thoughts on Fosters appointment.
However, if players are awesome under Robertson, but shit under Foster, I struggle to put that entire blame at Foster, given that he is the coach at the higher level of rugby.
We have many problems at the moment, of which Foster is bearing the brunt of them all. Reality is that if Cantab's can't play good underneath him, then he shouldn't select them.
We have many problems at the moment, of which Foster is bearing the brunt of them all. Reality is that if Cantab's can't play good underneath him, then he shouldn't select them.
Interesting the decline in AB rugby started late 2016, was in fast forward in 2019 and is now in overdrive but its only the Cantabs that are playing shit under Foster and not for a proven winning coach. So, the solution is to select players underperforming from teams with less of a record and hope they stand up? Its clear as fucken day late era Hansen and Foster have fucked this team into oblivion. As the head fucking coach it is your responsibility to get the team to gel. 3 fucking years of this depressing shit. And it hasn't hit the bottom yet. We still have Japan, Scotland and the Bled to lose. But sure, thats on the Cantabs.@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
its only the Cantabs that are playing shit under Foster and not for a proven winning coach.
If you're talking about Robertson, he's yet to prove himself at Test level. In reality, his coaching skills at Test level haven't even been evaluated as he hasn't taken an Assistant role in a Test side.
So, the solution is to select players underperforming from teams with less of a record and hope they stand up?
No. We select players who can make the step up to Test level. It doesn't matter which team they are from or how well that team has performed. That's why Aaron Smith and not Bryn Hall is first choice 9 and why Ma'a kept getting selected.
As the head fucking coach it is your responsibility to get the team to gel.
Agreed. But that requires players who can actually perform at Test level. Whether they are great under coach X or Y or not at SR level is irrelevant.
-
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
its only the Cantabs that are playing shit under Foster and not for a proven winning coach.
If you're talking about Robertson, he's yet to prove himself at Test level. In reality, his coaching skills at Test level haven't even been evaluated as he hasn't taken an Assistant role in a Test side.
So, the solution is to select players underperforming from teams with less of a record and hope they stand up?
No. We select players who can make the step up to Test level. It doesn't matter which team they are from or how well that team has performed. That's why Aaron Smith and not Bryn Hall is first choice 9 and why Ma'a kept getting selected.
As the head fucking coach it is your responsibility to get the team to gel.
Agreed. But that requires players who can actually perform at Test level. Whether they are great under coach X or Y or not at SR level is irrelevant.
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
its only the Cantabs that are playing shit under Foster and not for a proven winning coach.
If you're talking about Robertson, he's yet to prove himself at Test level. In reality, his coaching skills at Test level haven't even been evaluated as he hasn't taken an Assistant role in a Test side.
So, the solution is to select players underperforming from teams with less of a record and hope they stand up?
No. We select players who can make the step up to Test level. It doesn't matter which team they are from or how well that team has performed. That's why Aaron Smith and not Bryn Hall is first choice 9 and why Ma'a kept getting selected.
As the head fucking coach it is your responsibility to get the team to gel.
Agreed. But that requires players who can actually perform at Test level. Whether they are great under coach X or Y or not at SR level is irrelevant.
So which coach in NZ has proven himself at test level? Schmidt? Gatland? Foster? Are we that dense we can dismiss Razor based on the fact he's won nothing at test level despite his 80% winning record elsewhere? We're willing him to go to another powerhouse first?
So we select players who can make the step up. How do you know they can make the step up when they haven't played test footy?
If the coach keeps selecting players on form and then fail to make the step up, and continues to select players that fail to make the step up, maybe the coach is the issue. Brodie Retalick, Sam Whitelock, Beauden Barrett, Sam Cane, Aaron Smith et al have been in the side for 10 years and are shadows of their former selves. It's not just one or two who aren't performing, it's the entire squad consistently.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
its only the Cantabs that are playing shit under Foster and not for a proven winning coach.
If you're talking about Robertson, he's yet to prove himself at Test level. In reality, his coaching skills at Test level haven't even been evaluated as he hasn't taken an Assistant role in a Test side.
So, the solution is to select players underperforming from teams with less of a record and hope they stand up?
No. We select players who can make the step up to Test level. It doesn't matter which team they are from or how well that team has performed. That's why Aaron Smith and not Bryn Hall is first choice 9 and why Ma'a kept getting selected.
As the head fucking coach it is your responsibility to get the team to gel.
Agreed. But that requires players who can actually perform at Test level. Whether they are great under coach X or Y or not at SR level is irrelevant.
So which coach in NZ has proven himself at test level? Schmidt? Gatland? Foster? Are we that dense we can dismiss Razor based on the fact he's won nothing at test level despite his 80% winning record elsewhere? We're willing him to go to another powerhouse first?
So we select players who can make the step up. How do you know they can make the step up when they haven't played test footy?
If the coach keeps selecting players on form and then fail to make the step up, and continues to select players that fail to make the step up, maybe the coach is the issue. Brodie Retalick, Sam Whitelock, Beauden Barrett, Sam Cane, Aaron Smith et al have been in the side for 10 years and are shadows of their former selves. It's not just one or two who aren't performing, it's the entire squad consistently.
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
its only the Cantabs that are playing shit under Foster and not for a proven winning coach.
If you're talking about Robertson, he's yet to prove himself at Test level. In reality, his coaching skills at Test level haven't even been evaluated as he hasn't taken an Assistant role in a Test side.
So, the solution is to select players underperforming from teams with less of a record and hope they stand up?
No. We select players who can make the step up to Test level. It doesn't matter which team they are from or how well that team has performed. That's why Aaron Smith and not Bryn Hall is first choice 9 and why Ma'a kept getting selected.
As the head fucking coach it is your responsibility to get the team to gel.
Agreed. But that requires players who can actually perform at Test level. Whether they are great under coach X or Y or not at SR level is irrelevant.
Are we that dense we can dismiss Razor based on the fact he's won nothing at test level despite his 80% winning record elsewhere? We're willing him to go to another powerhouse first?
How is pointing out Robertson has zero Test experience and Test Rugby is at higher level than Super Rugby dismissing Robertson?
So we select players who can make the step up. How do you know they can make the step up when they haven't played test footy?
You pick players on form and if they can't make the step up to Test level you drop them. What team they come from and who coaches that team, has fuck all to do with ability to perform at Test level.
If the coach keeps selecting players on form and then fail to make the step up, and continues to select players that fail to make the step up, maybe the coach is the issue. Brodie Retalick, Sam Whitelock, Beauden Barrett, Sam Cane, Aaron Smith et al have been in the side for 10 years and are shadows of their former selves. It's not just one or two who aren't performing, it's the entire squad consistently.
Which has bugger-all to do with your theory that because Crusaders players are great at Super level, the only reason they're not world-beaters at Test level is down to Foster.
-
@MajorRage said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@MajorRage said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@mariner4life said in Foster:
the problem with looking at Super rugby as a player provider and only looking at the Crusaders is
20% of our pro players are at the Highlanders, a team that went 4-10 in a comp containing MP, Drua, Force and Rebels
Another 20% are at the Canes who at least managed 8 wins.
The Chiefs have another 20% and they somehow went 10-4 without a decent outside back, a decent 10, and losing ALB.The fact is, compared to 15 years ago, the standard of player you had to be to get a Super rugby contract has fallen dramatically.
This in no way absolves the current head coach, who is obviously fucked.
Who said anything about looking at the Crusaders only? The point is being made is simply, the players from the Crusaders go from being champions in red in black to looking like they've never seen a rugby ball in the ABs. If we don't select from Super Rugby, where do we select from?
Then they are mentally weak and not able the take the step up to test rugby. Super rugby is their natural ceiling.
Happened to plenty of players before.
There's not 23 players in NZ that can make the step up? I get one or two but we're talking about an entire squad. If they are mentally weak, what's the common denominator?
I've been pretty clear all the way through my thoughts on Fosters appointment.
However, if players are awesome under Robertson, but shit under Foster, I struggle to put that entire blame at Foster, given that he is the coach at the higher level of rugby.
We have many problems at the moment, of which Foster is bearing the brunt of them all. Reality is that if Cantab's can't play good underneath him, then he shouldn't select them.
We have many problems at the moment, of which Foster is bearing the brunt of them all. Reality is that if Cantab's can't play good underneath him, then he shouldn't select them.
Interesting the decline in AB rugby started late 2016, was in fast forward in 2019 and is now in overdrive but its only the Cantabs that are playing shit under Foster and not for a proven winning coach. So, the solution is to select players underperforming from teams with less of a record and hope they stand up? Its clear as fucken day late era Hansen and Foster have fucked this team into oblivion. As the head fucking coach it is your responsibility to get the team to gel. 3 fucking years of this depressing shit. And it hasn't hit the bottom yet. We still have Japan, Scotland and the Bled to lose. But sure, thats on the Cantabs.@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
Interesting the decline in AB rugby started late 2016, was in fast forward in 2019 and is now in overdrive but its only the Cantabs that are playing shit under Foster and not for a proven winning coach. So, the solution is to select players underperforming from teams with less of a record and hope they stand up? Its clear as fucken day late era Hansen and Foster have fucked this team into oblivion. As the head fucking coach it is your responsibility to get the team to gel. 3 fucking years of this depressing shit. And it hasn't hit the bottom yet. We still have Japan, Scotland and the Bled to lose. But sure, thats on the Cantabs.
It’s quite spectacular that it’s taken you 3 attempts to reply, but have still completely missed the point I was making and decided to go all playing the Cantab victim.
Have another crack.
-
Trade the Bled, change the shed
