Foster, Robertson etc
-
@Machpants said in All Blacks 2022:
ANother excellent article on The Roar by Highlander
Scott Robertson’s side don’t play ball in hand from everywhere nonsense. They attack you up front, they grind you into the ground, they push you off the gain line, they earn the right to go wide, they kick for territory, then and only then, do they let that extremely talented backline loose on the opposition.
I am not so sure about that. There were a number of times this season I was getting frustrated at the Crusaders trying to do the flashy stuff before earning the right to do so.
@Crazy-Horse said in Foster:
@Machpants said in All Blacks 2022:
ANother excellent article on The Roar by Highlander
Scott Robertson’s side don’t play ball in hand from everywhere nonsense. They attack you up front, they grind you into the ground, they push you off the gain line, they earn the right to go wide, they kick for territory, then and only then, do they let that extremely talented backline loose on the opposition.
I am not so sure about that. There were a number of times this season I was getting frustrated at the Crusaders trying to do the flashy stuff before earning the right to do so.
Yeah there was some of that. But hey I’m pretty sure they improved and nailed it when it counted!
-
The argument that coaches need some international experience before getting the head coaching role has been more or less blown apart by Foster. He had plenty of international experience. It appears to have done him little good.
Head coach and assistant coach are different.
If the argument is that you need international head coaching experience before becoming AB coach, then that is utterly bonkers. We should export all our best coaches at the height of their careers, then only appoint them once they are past their best and everyone else has worked out how to play against them???
Appointing any coach is always a risk. There's no way to avoid that. Just appoint the person who has been successful previously and appears to be up to date with modern play.
I would say that appointing Gatland or Schmidt is every bit as risky as appointing Robertson, no matter how experienced they are. Gatland's time at the Chiefs does not inspire confidence. Schmidt has shown an inflexibility to move on.
@Chester-Draws said in Foster:
The argument that coaches need some international experience before getting the head coaching role has been more or less blown apart by Foster. He had plenty of international experience. It appears to have done him little good.
Head coach and assistant coach are different.
If the argument is that you need international head coaching experience before becoming AB coach, then that is utterly bonkers. We should export all our best coaches at the height of their careers, then only appoint them once they are past their best and everyone else has worked out how to play against them???
Appointing any coach is always a risk. There's no way to avoid that. Just appoint the person who has been successful previously and appears to be up to date with modern play.
I would say that appointing Gatland or Schmidt is every bit as risky as appointing Robertson, no matter how experienced they are. Gatland's time at the Chiefs does not inspire confidence. Schmidt has shown an inflexibility to move on.
:thumbs_up_dark_skin_tone: :thumbs_up_dark_skin_tone: :thumbs_up_dark_skin_tone:
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Foster:
Question:
If by some absolute freaking miracle Foster's team wins the RWC, will that make this pain and horrible losses worth it? My answer is a resounding no, but curious as to what others think.No the legacy is bleeding for a long time more due to Foster.
If he does do we have 4 more years of Foster.
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Foster:
Question:
If by some absolute freaking miracle Foster's team wins the RWC, will that make this pain and horrible losses worth it? My answer is a resounding no, but curious as to what others think.No the legacy is bleeding for a long time more due to Foster.
If he does do we have 4 more years of Foster.
I don't think we do. Foster will have been in for 10 years with a 50% win ratio. He was a dog's hair from being given the arse. I'm sure the board has had a gutsful of the results over the last 3 years and will show him the door regardless. I'm also certain Foster, if won, will go out with a big "FUCK YOU" to the NZ public.
-
Question:
If by some absolute freaking miracle Foster's team wins the RWC, will that make this pain and horrible losses worth it? My answer is a resounding no, but curious as to what others think.@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Foster:
Question:
If by some absolute freaking miracle Foster's team wins the RWC, will that make this pain and horrible losses worth it? My answer is a resounding no, but curious as to what others think.Suzie would have to work some long hours and need some really good time management skills for that to happen.
-
The argument that coaches need some international experience before getting the head coaching role has been more or less blown apart by Foster. He had plenty of international experience. It appears to have done him little good.
Head coach and assistant coach are different.
If the argument is that you need international head coaching experience before becoming AB coach, then that is utterly bonkers. We should export all our best coaches at the height of their careers, then only appoint them once they are past their best and everyone else has worked out how to play against them???
Appointing any coach is always a risk. There's no way to avoid that. Just appoint the person who has been successful previously and appears to be up to date with modern play.
I would say that appointing Gatland or Schmidt is every bit as risky as appointing Robertson, no matter how experienced they are. Gatland's time at the Chiefs does not inspire confidence. Schmidt has shown an inflexibility to move on.
@Chester-Draws said in Foster:
If the argument is that you need international head coaching experience before becoming AB coach, then that is utterly bonkers.
It is, and it has never been the argument.
The argument is that Super and Tests are different games, with different cadences (squad selection, time with players, control of conditioning, etc) and that international experience is very helpful in transitioning to the international game.
I could understand why in 2019 you'd go Foster over Robertson. Ideally, if Robertson went somewhere different, it would be incredibly valuable for his development. Now that ship has sailed, he's clearly the best available choice, and we're getting into petty provincial bullshit on the Fern.
Go the ABs, but Foster can take a long walk off a short pier.
-
@Chester-Draws said in Foster:
If the argument is that you need international head coaching experience before becoming AB coach, then that is utterly bonkers.
It is, and it has never been the argument.
The argument is that Super and Tests are different games, with different cadences (squad selection, time with players, control of conditioning, etc) and that international experience is very helpful in transitioning to the international game.
I could understand why in 2019 you'd go Foster over Robertson. Ideally, if Robertson went somewhere different, it would be incredibly valuable for his development. Now that ship has sailed, he's clearly the best available choice, and we're getting into petty provincial bullshit on the Fern.
Go the ABs, but Foster can take a long walk off a short pier.
The argument is that Super and Tests are different games, with different cadences (squad selection, time with players, control of conditioning, etc) and that international experience is very helpful in transitioning to the international game
also Super Rugby is a second rate provincial comp where half the teams are complete dogshit, and another couple are as mid as it's possible to get. And of the two countries involved, one country's best players are overseas.
-
@Chester-Draws said in Foster:
If the argument is that you need international head coaching experience before becoming AB coach, then that is utterly bonkers.
It is, and it has never been the argument.
The argument is that Super and Tests are different games, with different cadences (squad selection, time with players, control of conditioning, etc) and that international experience is very helpful in transitioning to the international game.
I could understand why in 2019 you'd go Foster over Robertson. Ideally, if Robertson went somewhere different, it would be incredibly valuable for his development. Now that ship has sailed, he's clearly the best available choice, and we're getting into petty provincial bullshit on the Fern.
Go the ABs, but Foster can take a long walk off a short pier.
Cantabs were good under Hansen
Non-Cantabs in bad form or performance under Foster include Coles, Paps had a mediocre game at 6, Smith hasn't been himself, Jordie not in top form, BB, well, is BB-ordinary, the non-Crusaders props have been up and down, somebody called Sam Cane, BBR wasn't the same, TJP.. plus Sotutu
and Vaa'i aren't considered good enough as seldom selected, Sami T often put back on bench... as for Akira? -
The argument is that Super and Tests are different games, with different cadences (squad selection, time with players, control of conditioning, etc) and that international experience is very helpful in transitioning to the international game
also Super Rugby is a second rate provincial comp where half the teams are complete dogshit, and another couple are as mid as it's possible to get. And of the two countries involved, one country's best players are overseas.
@mariner4life said in Foster:
The argument is that Super and Tests are different games, with different cadences (squad selection, time with players, control of conditioning, etc) and that international experience is very helpful in transitioning to the international game
also Super Rugby is a second rate provincial comp where half the teams are complete dogshit, and another couple are as mid as it's possible to get. And of the two countries involved, one country's best players are overseas.
I would also suggest law variations not used elsewhere either as well (red card) and referees that allow different leeway on other rules. Example attacking teams going off their feet while cleaning out sometimes ignored/missed or coming from the side not as aggressively technically "pinged" in Super Rugby.
-
ANother excellent article on The Roar by Highlander
@Machpants said in Foster:
ANother excellent article on The Roar by Highlander
not reading, but i am guessing Shannon Frizzel is the absolute answer at 6
The ioane's can fuck entirely off
we need more Crusaders in the team -
Cantabs were good under Hansen
Non-Cantabs in bad form or performance under Foster include Coles, Paps had a mediocre game at 6, Smith hasn't been himself, Jordie not in top form, BB, well, is BB-ordinary, the non-Crusaders props have been up and down, somebody called Sam Cane, BBR wasn't the same, TJP.. plus Sotutu
and Vaa'i aren't considered good enough as seldom selected, Sami T often put back on bench... as for Akira?@nostrildamus said in Foster:
Cantabs were good under Hansen
Non-Cantabs in bad form or performance under Foster include Coles, Paps had a mediocre game at 6, Smith hasn't been himself, Jordie not in top form, BB, well, is BB-ordinary, the non-Crusaders props have been up and down, somebody called Sam Cane, BBR wasn't the same, TJP.. plus Sotutu
and Vaa'i aren't considered good enough as seldom selected, Sami T often put back on bench... as for Akira?Reading your post it just occurred to me that if everyone is playing 'badly' under Foster, how good will Sami T be when he has a decent coach!
-
@Machpants said in Foster:
ANother excellent article on The Roar by Highlander
not reading, but i am guessing Shannon Frizzel is the absolute answer at 6
The ioane's can fuck entirely off
we need more Crusaders in the team@mariner4life said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
ANother excellent article on The Roar by Highlander
not reading, but i am guessing Shannon Frizzel is the absolute answer at 6
The ioane's can fuck entirely off
we need more Crusaders in the teamUm, not even on the same planet close
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
Cantabs were good under Hansen
Non-Cantabs in bad form or performance under Foster include Coles, Paps had a mediocre game at 6, Smith hasn't been himself, Jordie not in top form, BB, well, is BB-ordinary, the non-Crusaders props have been up and down, somebody called Sam Cane, BBR wasn't the same, TJP.. plus Sotutu
and Vaa'i aren't considered good enough as seldom selected, Sami T often put back on bench... as for Akira?Reading your post it just occurred to me that if everyone is playing 'badly' under Foster, how good will Sami T be when he has a decent coach!
@Crazy-Horse said in Foster:
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
Cantabs were good under Hansen
Non-Cantabs in bad form or performance under Foster include Coles, Paps had a mediocre game at 6, Smith hasn't been himself, Jordie not in top form, BB, well, is BB-ordinary, the non-Crusaders props have been up and down, somebody called Sam Cane, BBR wasn't the same, TJP.. plus Sotutu
and Vaa'i aren't considered good enough as seldom selected, Sami T often put back on bench... as for Akira?Reading your post it just occurred to me that if everyone is playing 'badly' under Foster, how good will Sami T be when he has a decent coach!
The mind boggles!
-
The only silver lining in all this is a slight schadenfreude: at least now the rest of the country gets to have the 2004 - 2011 Chiefs fan experience too.
@Donsteppa said in Foster:
The only silver lining in all this is a slight schadenfreude: at least now the rest of the country gets to have the 2004 - 2011 Chiefs fan experience too.
So change the coach and we win the RWC next year? Sounds like a plan
-
@Donsteppa said in Foster:
The only silver lining in all this is a slight schadenfreude: at least now the rest of the country gets to have the 2004 - 2011 Chiefs fan experience too.
So change the coach and we win the RWC next year? Sounds like a plan
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Donsteppa said in Foster:
The only silver lining in all this is a slight schadenfreude: at least now the rest of the country gets to have the 2004 - 2011 Chiefs fan experience too.
So change the coach and we win the RWC next year? Sounds like a plan
And at this stage the Chiefs win loss ration of 50/50 would be an improvement this year for the AB's...
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@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.
"How is pointing out Robertson has zero Test experience and Test Rugby is at higher level than Super Rugby dismissing Robertson?"
That's exactly what you're doing. Because he has zero test experience, he cannot be considered for the ABs.
The whole basis of your argument is if the players can't make the step up they should be dropped. The issue is the whole squad collectively aren't stepping up. So, is that the squad or the coach? 30 odd players in the squad, you'd think 15 can put it together on the park. If they can't, the coach is flawed. Thats evident by his record as ABs coach. John Hart was too arrogant to see it, Wayne Smith recognised it. Foster is fucking blind.
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@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.
"How is pointing out Robertson has zero Test experience and Test Rugby is at higher level than Super Rugby dismissing Robertson?"
That's exactly what you're doing. Because he has zero test experience, he cannot be considered for the ABs.
Complete horseshit. I've argued that after Ireland III NZR should have considered replacing Foster with Robertson.
The whole basis of your argument is if the players can't make the step up they should be dropped.
Yes. That's how selecting the best players for a team works.
The issue is the whole squad collectively aren't stepping up.
Which (again) has bugger-all to do with your blaming Foster for the inability of Crusaders players to make the step up to Test level from Super level.
If you want more Crusaders in the AB's or Robertson as Head Coach then fine, but ignoring facts doesn't strengthen your case.
-
@Machpants said in Foster:
ANother excellent article on The Roar by Highlander
not reading, but i am guessing Shannon Frizzel is the absolute answer at 6
The ioane's can fuck entirely off
we need more Crusaders in the team@mariner4life If you read it, the suggestion seems to be Todd Blackadder, which is pretty clumsy!
Not because they play some helter skelter constant attack nonsense, but because they earn the right to play. Do Todd Blackadder, Cullen Grace and Tom Christie look like wide ball in hand operators to you?
Not at all, they can when needed, but they are there to provide the platform for team performance to be built off, they know and accept their role for the greater good of the side.
I use these three loose forwards as an example of how you build a team from the ground up rather than taking short cuts at international level and somehow thinking that a pairing of Akira Ioane and Ardie Savea is going to bother anybody at the top table.*
-
The argument that coaches need some international experience before getting the head coaching role has been more or less blown apart by Foster. He had plenty of international experience. It appears to have done him little good.
Head coach and assistant coach are different.
If the argument is that you need international head coaching experience before becoming AB coach, then that is utterly bonkers. We should export all our best coaches at the height of their careers, then only appoint them once they are past their best and everyone else has worked out how to play against them???
Appointing any coach is always a risk. There's no way to avoid that. Just appoint the person who has been successful previously and appears to be up to date with modern play.
I would say that appointing Gatland or Schmidt is every bit as risky as appointing Robertson, no matter how experienced they are. Gatland's time at the Chiefs does not inspire confidence. Schmidt has shown an inflexibility to move on.
@Chester-Draws said in Foster:
If the argument is that you need international head coaching experience before becoming AB coach, then that is utterly bonkers.
As others have pointed out, that isn't a serious argument, but experience is really helpful. But if a coach eschews the chance of getting international experience with his own country, then that might certainly raise some questions when considering him.
-
@Chester-Draws said in Foster:
If the argument is that you need international head coaching experience before becoming AB coach, then that is utterly bonkers.
As others have pointed out, that isn't a serious argument, but experience is really helpful. But if a coach eschews the chance of getting international experience with his own country, then that might certainly raise some questions when considering him.
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Chester-Draws said in Foster:
If the argument is that you need international head coaching experience before becoming AB coach, then that is utterly bonkers.
As others have pointed out, that isn't a serious argument, but experience is really helpful. But if a coach eschews the chance of getting international experience with his own country, then that might certainly raise some questions when considering him.
The thing is Foster before he became HC had 8 years of International experience which has not transferred to the Field in the last 3 years.
International experience is it over rated ? I am not sure.
Will Schmidt make a big impact he has plenty of International experience.That will be an interesting watch through to the WC.
