Foster, Robertson etc
-
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
Even the players admitted that assistants Gary Gold and Dick Muir were ultimately responsible for the success of that era and De Villiers was rather useless as a coach.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
Even the players admitted that assistants Gary Gold and Dick Muir were ultimately responsible for the success of that era and De Villiers was rather useless as a coach.
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
Not really. Even the players admitted that the assistants Gary Gold and Dick Muir were ultimately responsible for the success of that era & said De Villiers was pretty useless as a coach.
Every different to Foster then when you consider the high praise he gets from players like Ritchie, Ardie and Sam Whitelock.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
Not really. Even the players admitted that the assistants Gary Gold and Dick Muir were ultimately responsible for the success of that era & said De Villiers was pretty useless as a coach.
Every different to Foster then when you consider the high praise he gets from players like Ritchie, Ardie and Sam Whitelock.
@Victor-Meldrew You're confusing sentimental respect & fondness for a colleague with "Praise".
Those players have (understandably) never actually detailed Foster's coaching ability, it's against protocol.
-
@Victor-Meldrew You're confusing sentimental respect & fondness for a colleague with "Praise".
Those players have (understandably) never actually detailed Foster's coaching ability, it's against protocol.
@Victor-Meldrew You're confusing sentimental respect & fondness for a colleague with "Praise".
Those players have (understandably) never actually detailed Foster's coaching ability, it's against protocol.
Now you're making things up.
"The star Crusaders fly-half, who started on the bench for the tests against Ireland, backed Foster "because of his coaching ability".
I've had that taste early on in my All Blacks career (when Foster was an assistant) and I was able to gain so much knowledge and had 'wow' moments out in the field when he was coaching.
-
@Victor-Meldrew You're confusing sentimental respect & fondness for a colleague with "Praise".
Those players have (understandably) never actually detailed Foster's coaching ability, it's against protocol.
@Victor-Meldrew You're confusing sentimental respect & fondness for a colleague with "Praise".
Those players have (understandably) never actually detailed Foster's coaching ability, it's against protocol.
This is a bullshit re imagining to fit the mantra of "Foster is useless, kick him out".
Can't make him take all the blame for losses then claim that he had nothing to do with wins.
The problems have been shown to be more complex that that and quite possibly fixed.
To have quality players that have played under other quality coaches not only support his retention but to go into bat for him then heap praise on him after good performances indicates to me that he's more than just a nice guy. -
@Victor-Meldrew You're confusing sentimental respect & fondness for a colleague with "Praise".
Those players have (understandably) never actually detailed Foster's coaching ability, it's against protocol.
This is a bullshit re imagining to fit the mantra of "Foster is useless, kick him out".
Can't make him take all the blame for losses then claim that he had nothing to do with wins.
The problems have been shown to be more complex that that and quite possibly fixed.
To have quality players that have played under other quality coaches not only support his retention but to go into bat for him then heap praise on him after good performances indicates to me that he's more than just a nice guy.@Victor-Meldrew You're confusing sentimental respect & fondness for a colleague with "Praise".
Those players have (understandably) never actually detailed Foster's coaching ability, it's against protocol.
This is a bullshit re imagining to fit the mantra of "Foster is useless, kick him out".
Can't make him take all the blame for losses then claim that he had nothing to do with wins.
The problems have been shown to be more complex that that and quite possibly fixed.
To have quality players that have played under other quality coaches not only support his retention but to go into bat for him then heap praise on him after good performances indicates to me that he's more than just a nice guy.Hang on,are you saying RM is a quality player?.
-
@Victor-Meldrew You're confusing sentimental respect & fondness for a colleague with "Praise".
Those players have (understandably) never actually detailed Foster's coaching ability, it's against protocol.
This is a bullshit re imagining to fit the mantra of "Foster is useless, kick him out".
Can't make him take all the blame for losses then claim that he had nothing to do with wins.
The problems have been shown to be more complex that that and quite possibly fixed.
To have quality players that have played under other quality coaches not only support his retention but to go into bat for him then heap praise on him after good performances indicates to me that he's more than just a nice guy.Hang on,are you saying RM is a quality player?.
@Victor-Meldrew You're confusing sentimental respect & fondness for a colleague with "Praise".
Those players have (understandably) never actually detailed Foster's coaching ability, it's against protocol.
This is a bullshit re imagining to fit the mantra of "Foster is useless, kick him out".
Can't make him take all the blame for losses then claim that he had nothing to do with wins.
The problems have been shown to be more complex that that and quite possibly fixed.
To have quality players that have played under other quality coaches not only support his retention but to go into bat for him then heap praise on him after good performances indicates to me that he's more than just a nice guy.Hang on,are you saying RM is a quality player?.
There are levels of quality
-
@Victor-Meldrew You're confusing sentimental respect & fondness for a colleague with "Praise".
Those players have (understandably) never actually detailed Foster's coaching ability, it's against protocol.
This is a bullshit re imagining to fit the mantra of "Foster is useless, kick him out".
Can't make him take all the blame for losses then claim that he had nothing to do with wins.
The problems have been shown to be more complex that that and quite possibly fixed.
To have quality players that have played under other quality coaches not only support his retention but to go into bat for him then heap praise on him after good performances indicates to me that he's more than just a nice guy.Hang on,are you saying RM is a quality player?.
@Victor-Meldrew You're confusing sentimental respect & fondness for a colleague with "Praise".
Those players have (understandably) never actually detailed Foster's coaching ability, it's against protocol.
This is a bullshit re imagining to fit the mantra of "Foster is useless, kick him out".
Can't make him take all the blame for losses then claim that he had nothing to do with wins.
The problems have been shown to be more complex that that and quite possibly fixed.
To have quality players that have played under other quality coaches not only support his retention but to go into bat for him then heap praise on him after good performances indicates to me that he's more than just a nice guy.Hang on,are you saying RM is a quality player?.
A Cadbury Man of the Match quality player.
-
@Victor-Meldrew You're confusing sentimental respect & fondness for a colleague with "Praise".
Those players have (understandably) never actually detailed Foster's coaching ability, it's against protocol.
This is a bullshit re imagining to fit the mantra of "Foster is useless, kick him out".
Can't make him take all the blame for losses then claim that he had nothing to do with wins.
The problems have been shown to be more complex that that and quite possibly fixed.
To have quality players that have played under other quality coaches not only support his retention but to go into bat for him then heap praise on him after good performances indicates to me that he's more than just a nice guy.Hang on,are you saying RM is a quality player?.
There are levels of quality
@Victor-Meldrew You're confusing sentimental respect & fondness for a colleague with "Praise".
Those players have (understandably) never actually detailed Foster's coaching ability, it's against protocol.
This is a bullshit re imagining to fit the mantra of "Foster is useless, kick him out".
Can't make him take all the blame for losses then claim that he had nothing to do with wins.
The problems have been shown to be more complex that that and quite possibly fixed.
To have quality players that have played under other quality coaches not only support his retention but to go into bat for him then heap praise on him after good performances indicates to me that he's more than just a nice guy.Hang on,are you saying RM is a quality player?.
There are levels of quality
Almost got ya
-
@Victor-Meldrew You're confusing sentimental respect & fondness for a colleague with "Praise".
Those players have (understandably) never actually detailed Foster's coaching ability, it's against protocol.
This is a bullshit re imagining to fit the mantra of "Foster is useless, kick him out".
Can't make him take all the blame for losses then claim that he had nothing to do with wins.
The problems have been shown to be more complex that that and quite possibly fixed.
To have quality players that have played under other quality coaches not only support his retention but to go into bat for him then heap praise on him after good performances indicates to me that he's more than just a nice guy.Hang on,are you saying RM is a quality player?.
A Cadbury Man of the Match quality player.
@ACT-Crusader said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew You're confusing sentimental respect & fondness for a colleague with "Praise".
Those players have (understandably) never actually detailed Foster's coaching ability, it's against protocol.
This is a bullshit re imagining to fit the mantra of "Foster is useless, kick him out".
Can't make him take all the blame for losses then claim that he had nothing to do with wins.
The problems have been shown to be more complex that that and quite possibly fixed.
To have quality players that have played under other quality coaches not only support his retention but to go into bat for him then heap praise on him after good performances indicates to me that he's more than just a nice guy.Hang on,are you saying RM is a quality player?.
A Cadbury Man of the Match quality player.
Poll question: is the MOTM selection more or less of a lottery than the judiciary?
asking the real questions here
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew You're confusing sentimental respect & fondness for a colleague with "Praise".
Those players have (understandably) never actually detailed Foster's coaching ability, it's against protocol.
This is a bullshit re imagining to fit the mantra of "Foster is useless, kick him out".
Can't make him take all the blame for losses then claim that he had nothing to do with wins.
The problems have been shown to be more complex that that and quite possibly fixed.
To have quality players that have played under other quality coaches not only support his retention but to go into bat for him then heap praise on him after good performances indicates to me that he's more than just a nice guy.Hang on,are you saying RM is a quality player?.
A Cadbury Man of the Match quality player.
Poll question: is the MOTM selection more or less of a lottery than the judiciary?
asking the real questions here
@ACT-Crusader said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew You're confusing sentimental respect & fondness for a colleague with "Praise".
Those players have (understandably) never actually detailed Foster's coaching ability, it's against protocol.
This is a bullshit re imagining to fit the mantra of "Foster is useless, kick him out".
Can't make him take all the blame for losses then claim that he had nothing to do with wins.
The problems have been shown to be more complex that that and quite possibly fixed.
To have quality players that have played under other quality coaches not only support his retention but to go into bat for him then heap praise on him after good performances indicates to me that he's more than just a nice guy.Hang on,are you saying RM is a quality player?.
A Cadbury Man of the Match quality player.
Poll question: is the MOTM selection more or less of a lottery than the judiciary?
asking the real questions here
That’s a big question that one.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
Not really. Even the players admitted that the assistants Gary Gold and Dick Muir were ultimately responsible for the success of that era & said De Villiers was pretty useless as a coach.
Every different to Foster then when you consider the high praise he gets from players like Ritchie, Ardie and Sam Whitelock.
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
Not really. Even the players admitted that the assistants Gary Gold and Dick Muir were ultimately responsible for the success of that era & said De Villiers was pretty useless as a coach.
Every different to Foster then when you consider the high praise he gets from players like Ritchie, Ardie and Sam Whitelock.
Tbf, Mark "never made the playoffs despite having absolute power" Hammett seemed to have plenty of love from the players he didn't send packing.
I've no doubt that perhaps one-on-one Foster has plenty of wisdom to impart. He was a decent player himself and rose through the coaching ranks very quickly. Clearly he has something of value. Unfortunately it's patently obvious that he's not a very good head coach. The evidence obviously being the Chiefs and ABs. If I can give him credit for something it's having at least been humble enough to accept the changes that clearly needed to be made. While they came very belatedly and allowed him to save his job, many would probably have gone the full bottom lip and had a tanty. Maybe he does that in private but I for one feel a hell of alot better with Schmidt and Ryan holding his hand. It's a pretty ridiculous situation but probably the best outcome before handing over to Razor for fresh start (hopefully
) after the RWC. -
@ACT-Crusader said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew You're confusing sentimental respect & fondness for a colleague with "Praise".
Those players have (understandably) never actually detailed Foster's coaching ability, it's against protocol.
This is a bullshit re imagining to fit the mantra of "Foster is useless, kick him out".
Can't make him take all the blame for losses then claim that he had nothing to do with wins.
The problems have been shown to be more complex that that and quite possibly fixed.
To have quality players that have played under other quality coaches not only support his retention but to go into bat for him then heap praise on him after good performances indicates to me that he's more than just a nice guy.Hang on,are you saying RM is a quality player?.
A Cadbury Man of the Match quality player.
Poll question: is the MOTM selection more or less of a lottery than the judiciary?
asking the real questions here
@ACT-Crusader said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew You're confusing sentimental respect & fondness for a colleague with "Praise".
Those players have (understandably) never actually detailed Foster's coaching ability, it's against protocol.
This is a bullshit re imagining to fit the mantra of "Foster is useless, kick him out".
Can't make him take all the blame for losses then claim that he had nothing to do with wins.
The problems have been shown to be more complex that that and quite possibly fixed.
To have quality players that have played under other quality coaches not only support his retention but to go into bat for him then heap praise on him after good performances indicates to me that he's more than just a nice guy.Hang on,are you saying RM is a quality player?.
A Cadbury Man of the Match quality player.
Poll question: is the MOTM selection more or less of a lottery than the judiciary?
asking the real questions here
I can’t answer that question. What I do know is that Richie got all the chocolates on Saturday
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
Not really. Even the players admitted that the assistants Gary Gold and Dick Muir were ultimately responsible for the success of that era & said De Villiers was pretty useless as a coach.
Every different to Foster then when you consider the high praise he gets from players like Ritchie, Ardie and Sam Whitelock.
Tbf, Mark "never made the playoffs despite having absolute power" Hammett seemed to have plenty of love from the players he didn't send packing.
I've no doubt that perhaps one-on-one Foster has plenty of wisdom to impart. He was a decent player himself and rose through the coaching ranks very quickly. Clearly he has something of value. Unfortunately it's patently obvious that he's not a very good head coach. The evidence obviously being the Chiefs and ABs. If I can give him credit for something it's having at least been humble enough to accept the changes that clearly needed to be made. While they came very belatedly and allowed him to save his job, many would probably have gone the full bottom lip and had a tanty. Maybe he does that in private but I for one feel a hell of alot better with Schmidt and Ryan holding his hand. It's a pretty ridiculous situation but probably the best outcome before handing over to Razor for fresh start (hopefully
) after the RWC.@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
Not really. Even the players admitted that the assistants Gary Gold and Dick Muir were ultimately responsible for the success of that era & said De Villiers was pretty useless as a coach.
Every different to Foster then when you consider the high praise he gets from players like Ritchie, Ardie and Sam Whitelock.
Tbf, Mark "never made the playoffs despite having absolute power" Hammett seemed to have plenty of love from the players he didn't send packing.
I've no doubt that perhaps one-on-one Foster has plenty of wisdom to impart. He was a decent player himself and rose through the coaching ranks very quickly. Clearly he has something of value. Unfortunately it's patently obvious that he's not a very good head coach. The evidence obviously being the Chiefs and ABs. If I can give him credit for something it's having at least been humble enough to accept the changes that clearly needed to be made. While they came very belatedly and allowed him to save his job, many would probably have gone the full bottom lip and had a tanty. Maybe he does that in private but I for one feel a hell of alot better with Schmidt and Ryan holding his hand. It's a pretty ridiculous situation but probably the best outcome before handing over to Razor for fresh start (hopefully
) after the RWC.The flip side to your argument is that maybe he is a good head coach. He has held this team together and found solutions. Even with his mistakes (eg holding on to assistants and some players) he hasn't lost the changing room and has helped guide things through adversity.
Yep, he has stumbled onto some solutions or had his hand forced but I don't buy that he is some kind of idiot at the helm of a ship navigated and sailed by the crew.
Definitely had his failings exposed but he has also been able to work past them.Maybe.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
Not really. Even the players admitted that the assistants Gary Gold and Dick Muir were ultimately responsible for the success of that era & said De Villiers was pretty useless as a coach.
Every different to Foster then when you consider the high praise he gets from players like Ritchie, Ardie and Sam Whitelock.
Tbf, Mark "never made the playoffs despite having absolute power" Hammett seemed to have plenty of love from the players he didn't send packing.
I've no doubt that perhaps one-on-one Foster has plenty of wisdom to impart. He was a decent player himself and rose through the coaching ranks very quickly. Clearly he has something of value. Unfortunately it's patently obvious that he's not a very good head coach. The evidence obviously being the Chiefs and ABs. If I can give him credit for something it's having at least been humble enough to accept the changes that clearly needed to be made. While they came very belatedly and allowed him to save his job, many would probably have gone the full bottom lip and had a tanty. Maybe he does that in private but I for one feel a hell of alot better with Schmidt and Ryan holding his hand. It's a pretty ridiculous situation but probably the best outcome before handing over to Razor for fresh start (hopefully
) after the RWC.The flip side to your argument is that maybe he is a good head coach. He has held this team together and found solutions. Even with his mistakes (eg holding on to assistants and some players) he hasn't lost the changing room and has helped guide things through adversity.
Yep, he has stumbled onto some solutions or had his hand forced but I don't buy that he is some kind of idiot at the helm of a ship navigated and sailed by the crew.
Definitely had his failings exposed but he has also been able to work past them.Maybe.
The flip side to your argument is that maybe he is a good head coach.
oh, my sides
Seriously though, he's clearly not a coaching idiot. Wayne Smith rated him, some players rate him, he interviewed well with the board. I just think with better governance he would have been moved on last year, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Hell, with better governance we'd have had a proper contested process for the job - not just Foster vs Robertson.
As always the truth is somewhere in the middle. Like our side, he's a flawed character
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
Not really. Even the players admitted that the assistants Gary Gold and Dick Muir were ultimately responsible for the success of that era & said De Villiers was pretty useless as a coach.
Every different to Foster then when you consider the high praise he gets from players like Ritchie, Ardie and Sam Whitelock.
Tbf, Mark "never made the playoffs despite having absolute power" Hammett seemed to have plenty of love from the players he didn't send packing.
I've no doubt that perhaps one-on-one Foster has plenty of wisdom to impart. He was a decent player himself and rose through the coaching ranks very quickly. Clearly he has something of value. Unfortunately it's patently obvious that he's not a very good head coach. The evidence obviously being the Chiefs and ABs. If I can give him credit for something it's having at least been humble enough to accept the changes that clearly needed to be made. While they came very belatedly and allowed him to save his job, many would probably have gone the full bottom lip and had a tanty. Maybe he does that in private but I for one feel a hell of alot better with Schmidt and Ryan holding his hand. It's a pretty ridiculous situation but probably the best outcome before handing over to Razor for fresh start (hopefully
) after the RWC.@Rancid-Schnitzel apparently razor met with mark Robinson yesterday at nzru headquarters on a public holiday. And walked out together, Nobody knows what is was about . Hopefully his coaching contract post World Cup .
The funny thing is senz share the same building and same floor and they were giving live commentary as it was happening.
Not ideal for private meetings. -
-
This post is deleted!
