Foster, Robertson etc
-
@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:
@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.
The facts are, Foster has a shit record and players under an 80% winning coach are currently running at 25% over the last 8 tests. I'm not advocating for more Cantabs in the team, again, another fabricated point made up by you. Foster can't get any of the squad to play consistent, cohesive winning rugby. But what you want is to sack the entire squad because they are all playing shit. Now, is it they all can't make the step up or, maybe, just maybe the head coach who was part of the decline of AB rugby under Hansen is without answers and is responsible for getting this team to work and win?
Jeez, that's some mixture of irrelevance. horseshit and putting words into my mouth.
But let's come back to your original point - which is when Crusaders players who excel at Super Rugby level (you mentioned Crusaders players) can't repeat that form at Test Test level, it has fuck all to do Test rugby being at a higher level, but is all down to Foster.
Not only is that argument wrong, it is a mind-blowingly wrong and pretty pointless to debate.
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@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:
@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.
The facts are, Foster has a shit record and players under an 80% winning coach are currently running at 25% over the last 8 tests. I'm not advocating for more Cantabs in the team, again, another fabricated point made up by you. Foster can't get any of the squad to play consistent, cohesive winning rugby. But what you want is to sack the entire squad because they are all playing shit. Now, is it they all can't make the step up or, maybe, just maybe the head coach who was part of the decline of AB rugby under Hansen is without answers and is responsible for getting this team to work and win?
Jeez, that's some mixture of irrelevance. horseshit and putting words into my mouth.
But let's come back to your original point - which is when Crusaders players who excel at Super Rugby level (you mentioned Crusaders players) can't repeat that form at Test Test level, it has fuck all to do Test rugby being at a higher level, but is all down to Foster.
Not only is that argument wrong, it is a mind-blowingly wrong and pretty pointless to debate.
Would it make it easier for your weak heart if I said the Super final making Blues players can't replicate their form at test level? For someone who thinks Robertson should have replaced Foster, you're defending his inability to galvanise the squad into a winning team. You're simply saying the 30 odd players in the squad can't make the step up therefore the entire squad should be dropped. OK, so name your 30 odd replacements who under Foster will make the step up and win the RWC next year.
-
@Joans-Town-Jones *you're
@MajorRage I bet you enjoyed rubbing one out to that.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@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:
@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.
The facts are, Foster has a shit record and players under an 80% winning coach are currently running at 25% over the last 8 tests. I'm not advocating for more Cantabs in the team, again, another fabricated point made up by you. Foster can't get any of the squad to play consistent, cohesive winning rugby. But what you want is to sack the entire squad because they are all playing shit. Now, is it they all can't make the step up or, maybe, just maybe the head coach who was part of the decline of AB rugby under Hansen is without answers and is responsible for getting this team to work and win?
Jeez, that's some mixture of irrelevance. horseshit and putting words into my mouth.
But let's come back to your original point - which is when Crusaders players who excel at Super Rugby level (you mentioned Crusaders players) can't repeat that form at Test Test level, it has fuck all to do Test rugby being at a higher level, but is all down to Foster.
Not only is that argument wrong, it is a mind-blowingly wrong and pretty pointless to debate.
Would it make it easier for your weak heart if I said the Super final making Blues players can't replicate their form at test level? For someone who thinks Robertson should have replaced Foster, you're defending his inability to galvanise the squad into a winning team. You're simply saying the 30 odd players in the squad can't make the step up therefore the entire squad should be dropped. OK, so name your 30 odd replacements who under Foster will make the step up and win the RWC next year.
@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:
@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.
The facts are, Foster has a shit record and players under an 80% winning coach are currently running at 25% over the last 8 tests. I'm not advocating for more Cantabs in the team, again, another fabricated point made up by you. Foster can't get any of the squad to play consistent, cohesive winning rugby. But what you want is to sack the entire squad because they are all playing shit. Now, is it they all can't make the step up or, maybe, just maybe the head coach who was part of the decline of AB rugby under Hansen is without answers and is responsible for getting this team to work and win?
Jeez, that's some mixture of irrelevance. horseshit and putting words into my mouth.
But let's come back to your original point - which is when Crusaders players who excel at Super Rugby level (you mentioned Crusaders players) can't repeat that form at Test Test level, it has fuck all to do Test rugby being at a higher level, but is all down to Foster.
Not only is that argument wrong, it is a mind-blowingly wrong and pretty pointless to debate.
Would it make it easier for your weak heart if I said the Super final making Blues players can't replicate their form at test level? For someone who thinks Robertson should have replaced Foster, you're defending his inability to galvanise the squad into a winning team. You're simply saying the 30 odd players in the squad can't make the step up therefore the entire squad should be dropped. OK, so name your 30 odd replacements who under Foster will make the step up and win the RWC next year.
No, no, no & no.
-
@MajorRage said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
Your argument, Champ.
Let me break this down for you. Try to not to get too upset that my post isn't going to be gushing every single thing Cantab, ok?
Here is your original post:
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?
This is your view, not mine. I don't even necessarily agree with it. I think Scott Barrett is currently playing the best rugby of his life. I'm in the pro Richie over Beauden camp as I think he has the ability to control a game better (as seen in Joburg). I think Havili is struggling with his combination with Ioane, but I like him as a player, generally. Where I do agree with you, are players like Taylor & Leicester. But I don't put either of the blame here on Foster. As I think Taylor is just looking that little bit past it now & Leicester looked a bit out of his depth. Hence, I said ....
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.
Perhaps mentally weak was a poor choice of words, but I do believe for both of these players this is their current ceiling. I hope I'm wrong, I really do.
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?
No, you were talking about an entire squad. Not me. This assertion was absurd from the get go. It's clear at this stage you had your back up because I wasn't completely gushing about everything Cantab & I also suspected you think I'm a fan of Foster & hence anti-Razor, so I wrote this:
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.
Get it now? Problem was with selection, not the players. I've never once said I agree with your, frankly ridiculous, sweeping statement that the entire squad is awesome under Robertson, but shit under Foster. so now lets look at your last post:
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.
Who said only the Cantab's were playing shit? Was that you? It certainly wasn't me.
So, the solution is to select players underperforming from teams with less of a record and hope they stand up?
No, the solution is to select the best team and put them on the park. This may shock you a bit, but not 100% of the All Blacks should be Cantab's. On the flip side, it's certainly not 0% either.
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.
Don't agree with this entirely, but it's certainly the closest we'll come to agreeing on anything, it seems.
Finally ... if you have issues with editing (many do) then instead of deleting, you can click the 3 dots on the bottom right of the post & change to Edit. I've removed your deleted posts as a series of deleted posts suggests that you've completely lost your shit about something and had to be moderated.
And you, completely missed the entire fucking point. I'm not gushing over the Cantabs. What I'm saying and many others have said is WHY THE FUCK ARE THE CANTABS UNDER ROBERSTON LOOK $$$$$ WHEN UNDER FOZZIE THEY LOOK LIKE DOG SHIT? Surely, if you have a side that is winning everything, a large selection of your team will be selected from that side.
As for the editing, I did try and edit you moron but for some fucking reason it kept including the last sentence of your quote. If you have a little pissy over some editing issues the you've got some shit going on somewhere else.
-
He's such a nice guy, don't fear losing, or your position on the team, I guess
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/if-you-play-under-fear-then-you-restrict-your-options/
@Machpants said in Foster:
He's such a nice guy, don't fear losing, or your position on the team, I guess
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/if-you-play-under-fear-then-you-restrict-your-options/
Did you link to the right article?
In the one you posted, the "fear" Foster is talking about fear of losing/things going wrong during the game and how it's cramping the team's on-field play. Actually made sense to me.
-
@Machpants said in Foster:
He's such a nice guy, don't fear losing, or your position on the team, I guess
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/if-you-play-under-fear-then-you-restrict-your-options/
Did you link to the right article?
In the one you posted, the "fear" Foster is talking about fear of losing/things going wrong during the game and how it's cramping the team's on-field play. Actually made sense to me.
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
He's such a nice guy, don't fear losing, or your position on the team, I guess
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/if-you-play-under-fear-then-you-restrict-your-options/
Did you link to the right article?
In the one you posted, the "fear" Foster is talking about fear of losing/things going wrong during the game and how it's cramping the team's on-field play. Actually made sense to me.
Yeah fear of losing is what has made the ABs have such high standards over many years, McCaw, Fitzpatrick, etc all talked about the fear of losing is what pushed their excellence. Now it's too scarey so they lose?
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
He's such a nice guy, don't fear losing, or your position on the team, I guess
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/if-you-play-under-fear-then-you-restrict-your-options/
Did you link to the right article?
In the one you posted, the "fear" Foster is talking about fear of losing/things going wrong during the game and how it's cramping the team's on-field play. Actually made sense to me.
Yeah fear of losing is what has made the ABs have such high standards over many years, McCaw, Fitzpatrick, etc all talked about the fear of losing is what pushed their excellence. Now it's too scarey so they lose?
@Machpants IMO, it isnt really a fear of losing, more the desire to win that seperates those at the top...might seem semantics but I think it is quite a different shift in mindset.
You see it in plenty of sports where teams or individuals start well, but end up trying not to lose the game, rather than keep pressing on to win.
But I do think right now, you get the sense these guys are trying not to lose games rather than trying to win them.
-
@Machpants IMO, it isnt really a fear of losing, more the desire to win that seperates those at the top...might seem semantics but I think it is quite a different shift in mindset.
You see it in plenty of sports where teams or individuals start well, but end up trying not to lose the game, rather than keep pressing on to win.
But I do think right now, you get the sense these guys are trying not to lose games rather than trying to win them.
@taniwharugby said in Foster:
@Machpants IMO, it isnt really a fear of losing, more the desire to win that seperates those at the top...might seem semantics but I think it is quite a different shift in mindset.
You see it in plenty of sports where teams or individuals start well, but end up trying not to lose the game, rather than keep pressing on to win.
>
But I do think right now, you get the sense these guys are trying not to lose games rather than trying to win them.Maybe, but the fear of losing and tarnishing legacy is gone. I think there is no real care for that, the players just don't know about it. After the 2013 come back all the player's then talked about the loss of the unblemished record versus Irealnd. Now they're like 'oh we've never lost to Ireland/Puma/Scotland before?'
The bolded bit makes me LOL cos that's SMith's accusation against the Puma
-
@taniwharugby said in Foster:
@Machpants IMO, it isnt really a fear of losing, more the desire to win that seperates those at the top...might seem semantics but I think it is quite a different shift in mindset.
You see it in plenty of sports where teams or individuals start well, but end up trying not to lose the game, rather than keep pressing on to win.
>
But I do think right now, you get the sense these guys are trying not to lose games rather than trying to win them.Maybe, but the fear of losing and tarnishing legacy is gone. I think there is no real care for that, the players just don't know about it. After the 2013 come back all the player's then talked about the loss of the unblemished record versus Irealnd. Now they're like 'oh we've never lost to Ireland/Puma/Scotland before?'
The bolded bit makes me LOL cos that's SMith's accusation against the Puma
@Machpants said in Foster:
@taniwharugby said in Foster:
@Machpants IMO, it isnt really a fear of losing, more the desire to win that seperates those at the top...might seem semantics but I think it is quite a different shift in mindset.
You see it in plenty of sports where teams or individuals start well, but end up trying not to lose the game, rather than keep pressing on to win.
>
But I do think right now, you get the sense these guys are trying not to lose games rather than trying to win them.Maybe, but the fear of losing and tarnishing legacy is gone. I think there is no real care for that, the players just don't know about it. After the 2013 come back all the player's then talked about the loss of the unblemished record versus Irealnd. Now they're like 'oh we've never lost to Ireland/Puma/Scotland before?'
The bolded bit makes me LOL cos that's SMith's accusation against the Puma
Oh, I thought it was the All Blacks bestest player and captain in waiting when informed about losing to Ireland in New Zealand.
-
@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.
-
@Machpants said in Foster:
@taniwharugby said in Foster:
@Machpants IMO, it isnt really a fear of losing, more the desire to win that seperates those at the top...might seem semantics but I think it is quite a different shift in mindset.
You see it in plenty of sports where teams or individuals start well, but end up trying not to lose the game, rather than keep pressing on to win.
>
But I do think right now, you get the sense these guys are trying not to lose games rather than trying to win them.Maybe, but the fear of losing and tarnishing legacy is gone. I think there is no real care for that, the players just don't know about it. After the 2013 come back all the player's then talked about the loss of the unblemished record versus Irealnd. Now they're like 'oh we've never lost to Ireland/Puma/Scotland before?'
The bolded bit makes me LOL cos that's SMith's accusation against the Puma
Oh, I thought it was the All Blacks bestest player and captain in waiting when informed about losing to Ireland in New Zealand.
@antipodean said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@taniwharugby said in Foster:
@Machpants IMO, it isnt really a fear of losing, more the desire to win that seperates those at the top...might seem semantics but I think it is quite a different shift in mindset.
You see it in plenty of sports where teams or individuals start well, but end up trying not to lose the game, rather than keep pressing on to win.
>
But I do think right now, you get the sense these guys are trying not to lose games rather than trying to win them.Maybe, but the fear of losing and tarnishing legacy is gone. I think there is no real care for that, the players just don't know about it. After the 2013 come back all the player's then talked about the loss of the unblemished record versus Irealnd. Now they're like 'oh we've never lost to Ireland/Puma/Scotland before?'
The bolded bit makes me LOL cos that's SMith's accusation against the Puma
Oh, I thought it was the All Blacks bestest player and captain in waiting when informed about losing to Ireland in New Zealand.
Totally was the ABs best layer, but he certainly has a bit to learn around the history of the jersey. But that's a team thing, that I think went backwards after Richie.
A bit like letting the forwards wear colured boots
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
He's such a nice guy, don't fear losing, or your position on the team, I guess
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/if-you-play-under-fear-then-you-restrict-your-options/
Did you link to the right article?
In the one you posted, the "fear" Foster is talking about fear of losing/things going wrong during the game and how it's cramping the team's on-field play. Actually made sense to me.
Yeah fear of losing is what has made the ABs have such high standards over many years, McCaw, Fitzpatrick, etc all talked about the fear of losing is what pushed their excellence. Now it's too scarey so they lose?
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
He's such a nice guy, don't fear losing, or your position on the team, I guess
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/if-you-play-under-fear-then-you-restrict-your-options/
Did you link to the right article?
In the one you posted, the "fear" Foster is talking about fear of losing/things going wrong during the game and how it's cramping the team's on-field play. Actually made sense to me.
Yeah fear of losing is what has made the ABs have such high standards over many years, McCaw, Fitzpatrick, etc all talked about the fear of losing is what pushed their excellence. Now it's too scarey so they lose?
I hate how the fear of failure is now seen as something that can only impact a person negatively - this does not need to be the case. Guys like Fitzy have talked about the fear of failure being a massive motivating factor, the kind of thing that can push you to do extra on and off the pitch in order to win.
It absolutely does my nut in to hear professional athletes playing in one of the most successful teams in history talking about the fear of failure as if it can only be something that inhibits them. Again, this does not need to be the case.
I am sure everyone here has at some time or another their life been motivated to work harder or smarter at something by the fear of failing at it. Personally, not ending up a failed loser in life has been a massive motivating factor in pushing myself in my studies, work, and even on the golf course!
-
@Machpants IMO, it isnt really a fear of losing, more the desire to win that seperates those at the top...might seem semantics but I think it is quite a different shift in mindset.
You see it in plenty of sports where teams or individuals start well, but end up trying not to lose the game, rather than keep pressing on to win.
But I do think right now, you get the sense these guys are trying not to lose games rather than trying to win them.
@taniwharugby said in Foster:
@Machpants IMO, it isnt really a fear of losing, more the desire to win that seperates those at the top...might seem semantics but I think it is quite a different shift in mindset.
You see it in plenty of sports where teams or individuals start well, but end up trying not to lose the game, rather than keep pressing on to win.
But I do think right now, you get the sense these guys are trying not to lose games rather than trying to win them.
I think it is less that than how each individual and team responds to that fear - are you going to respond to the fear of losing by not even trying? Or are you going to respond to that fear by doing everything in your power to win?
-
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
He's such a nice guy, don't fear losing, or your position on the team, I guess
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/if-you-play-under-fear-then-you-restrict-your-options/
Did you link to the right article?
In the one you posted, the "fear" Foster is talking about fear of losing/things going wrong during the game and how it's cramping the team's on-field play. Actually made sense to me.
Yeah fear of losing is what has made the ABs have such high standards over many years, McCaw, Fitzpatrick, etc all talked about the fear of losing is what pushed their excellence. Now it's too scarey so they lose?
I hate how the fear of failure is now seen as something that can only impact a person negatively - this does not need to be the case. Guys like Fitzy have talked about the fear of failure being a massive motivating factor, the kind of thing that can push you to do extra on and off the pitch in order to win.
It absolutely does my nut in to hear professional athletes playing in one of the most successful teams in history talking about the fear of failure as if it can only be something that inhibits them. Again, this does not need to be the case.
I am sure everyone here has at some time or another their life been motivated to work harder or smarter at something by the fear of failing at it. Personally, not ending up a failed loser in life has been a massive motivating factor in pushing myself in my studies, work, and even on the golf course!
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
He's such a nice guy, don't fear losing, or your position on the team, I guess
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/if-you-play-under-fear-then-you-restrict-your-options/
Did you link to the right article?
In the one you posted, the "fear" Foster is talking about fear of losing/things going wrong during the game and how it's cramping the team's on-field play. Actually made sense to me.
Yeah fear of losing is what has made the ABs have such high standards over many years, McCaw, Fitzpatrick, etc all talked about the fear of losing is what pushed their excellence. Now it's too scarey so they lose?
I hate how the fear of failure is now seen as something that can only impact a person negatively - this does not need to be the case.
Guys like Fitzy have talked about the fear of failure being a massive motivating factor, the kind of thing that can push you to do extra on and off the pitch in order to win.True and a good point. But fear of failure combined with a loss of confidence (team or individual) is hugely corrosive as it can become self-fulfilling. Fitzy and co. led teams which had confidence in their ability to win from bad situations - this team hasn't.
It absolutely does my nut in to hear professional athletes playing in one of the most successful teams in history talking about the fear of failure as if it can only be something that inhibits them. Again, this does not need to be the case.
Sadly, in this case I think it is. When you've lost Test after Test and can't bounce back much, you try new things and they don't work out, criticism is coming in from all sides and you keep being told you've soiled the legacy, that makes using the risk of failure as a motivation is pretty damn hard.
I am sure everyone here has at some time or another their life been motivated to work harder or smarter at something by the fear of failing at it. Personally, not ending up a failed loser in life has been a massive motivating factor in pushing myself in my studies, work, and even on the golf course!
Team dynamics are really weird though as the things you mention are controlled collectively and not individually. It can take a little spark to turn things around, or a small error can cause a collective brain-fart.
-
-
@Crucial ah sorry
OPINION
MONDAY
Well you know obviously the boys are hurting. The boys are hurting, and when the boys are hurting, that sort of adds up to a lot of hurt. A lot of hurt, I think it's fair to say, is what the boys are feeling. I said to them, "Boys," I said, "you're in a world of pain. You're in a very, very dark place, and there doesn't seem like there's a light at the end of the tunnel. It feels like there's no tomorrow. It feels like there's no point in getting up in the morning. One or two of you may be thinking, 'What's the point of existence?' And others may be experiencing a sort of totally full-on existential crisis."I said those exact words to them in my pre-match pep talk before the Argentina game so imagine how they're feeling now.
TUESDAY
Jacinda Ardern called and said that if I wanted to change the starting XV for the next test on Saturday that she would back me up, adding that I should never be afraid to do a U-turn, that she did it all the time and that it always worked wonders with the public.
I thanked her for the advice but told her that listening to the public was a sign of weakness, and losing on my own terms was a sign of strength.WEDNESDAY
Okay, so I guess the message is we have been pretty ruthless and hard on ourselves behind the scenes. Ruthless, and hard on ourselves, and very, very critical. I said to the boys, "Boys," I said, "you're actually pretty useless, some of you, aren't you? I don't know how you can look at yourself in the mirror. Dear oh dear. What a shower. Just not good enough, really. At the end of the day, nowhere near good enough. The blame lies fairly and squarely at your feet."One of the boys had a go at me but I don't stand for criticism. It's out of line.
THURSDAY
Christopher Luxon called and said he wouldn't rule out working with me in a National-led government.I thanked him for his call but told him that my job was a lot safer than his.
FRIDAY
For those who want blood, I guess we haven't given it, have we? But if you play under fear, you restrict your options, you restrict your thinking. And what actually happens is that you just don't get the game going, the way you want to do it.But we actually believe in some things that we're working on now.
It's hard work when the team is not sort of at 100 per cent every week. But I have been there when it is, and I know how much experience you need to get to that point and how much hard work and how sort of settled the team needs to be.
And we think the best way to build the confidence in those key pressure moments is to put the guys out there that have just been through it, have felt it. And now we've talked about some different solutions. So we're backing that by fielding the same starting XV as last Saturday.
Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results. But Einstein didn't play rugby and if there's one thing the public has come to know about me in my reign as All Blacks coach, I'm no Einstein.
-
@Crucial ah sorry
OPINION
MONDAY
Well you know obviously the boys are hurting. The boys are hurting, and when the boys are hurting, that sort of adds up to a lot of hurt. A lot of hurt, I think it's fair to say, is what the boys are feeling. I said to them, "Boys," I said, "you're in a world of pain. You're in a very, very dark place, and there doesn't seem like there's a light at the end of the tunnel. It feels like there's no tomorrow. It feels like there's no point in getting up in the morning. One or two of you may be thinking, 'What's the point of existence?' And others may be experiencing a sort of totally full-on existential crisis."I said those exact words to them in my pre-match pep talk before the Argentina game so imagine how they're feeling now.
TUESDAY
Jacinda Ardern called and said that if I wanted to change the starting XV for the next test on Saturday that she would back me up, adding that I should never be afraid to do a U-turn, that she did it all the time and that it always worked wonders with the public.
I thanked her for the advice but told her that listening to the public was a sign of weakness, and losing on my own terms was a sign of strength.WEDNESDAY
Okay, so I guess the message is we have been pretty ruthless and hard on ourselves behind the scenes. Ruthless, and hard on ourselves, and very, very critical. I said to the boys, "Boys," I said, "you're actually pretty useless, some of you, aren't you? I don't know how you can look at yourself in the mirror. Dear oh dear. What a shower. Just not good enough, really. At the end of the day, nowhere near good enough. The blame lies fairly and squarely at your feet."One of the boys had a go at me but I don't stand for criticism. It's out of line.
THURSDAY
Christopher Luxon called and said he wouldn't rule out working with me in a National-led government.I thanked him for his call but told him that my job was a lot safer than his.
FRIDAY
For those who want blood, I guess we haven't given it, have we? But if you play under fear, you restrict your options, you restrict your thinking. And what actually happens is that you just don't get the game going, the way you want to do it.But we actually believe in some things that we're working on now.
It's hard work when the team is not sort of at 100 per cent every week. But I have been there when it is, and I know how much experience you need to get to that point and how much hard work and how sort of settled the team needs to be.
And we think the best way to build the confidence in those key pressure moments is to put the guys out there that have just been through it, have felt it. And now we've talked about some different solutions. So we're backing that by fielding the same starting XV as last Saturday.
Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results. But Einstein didn't play rugby and if there's one thing the public has come to know about me in my reign as All Blacks coach, I'm no Einstein.
@Machpants what an utter crap article.
