Foster, Robertson etc
-
@kiwi_expat looool I love Eddie. I've met him a few times, he's fucking funny.
But he's won precisely fuck all. And has a short shelf life apparently
@mariner4life said in Foster:
@kiwi_expat looool I love Eddie. I've met him a few times, he's fucking funny.
But he's won precisely fuck all. And has a short shelf life apparently
https://www.rugby.com.au/news/wallabies-england-eddie-jones-why-this-ones-personal-202272
He has a 2007 World Cup winner’s medal from his time with the Springboks ... He has coached the Wallabies to win the Tri-Nations and Bledisloe Cup and taken England to a Grand Slam and three Six Nations titles, achieving a record-equaling 18 consecutive wins along the way. His teams have beaten every major Test side in the game, including twice eliminating the All Blacks from the Rugby World Cup, and in 2017 he was voted International Rugby Board coach of the year.Well, apart from that....
-
@mariner4life said in Foster:
@kiwi_expat looool I love Eddie. I've met him a few times, he's fucking funny.
But he's won precisely fuck all. And has a short shelf life apparently
https://www.rugby.com.au/news/wallabies-england-eddie-jones-why-this-ones-personal-202272
He has a 2007 World Cup winner’s medal from his time with the Springboks ... He has coached the Wallabies to win the Tri-Nations and Bledisloe Cup and taken England to a Grand Slam and three Six Nations titles, achieving a record-equaling 18 consecutive wins along the way. His teams have beaten every major Test side in the game, including twice eliminating the All Blacks from the Rugby World Cup, and in 2017 he was voted International Rugby Board coach of the year.Well, apart from that....
@nostrildamus kind of beat me too it Nostri, he certainly won plenty, funnily enough, never anything at super level, which kind of makes a joke of super titiles being the reason for making someone a test coach. I mean Robbie Deans got about 5 super titles, and was hardly a success as a test coach ,though seems to be doing bloody well at top club level in Japan.
-
@nostrildamus kind of beat me too it Nostri, he certainly won plenty, funnily enough, never anything at super level, which kind of makes a joke of super titiles being the reason for making someone a test coach. I mean Robbie Deans got about 5 super titles, and was hardly a success as a test coach ,though seems to be doing bloody well at top club level in Japan.
-
@nostrildamus kind of beat me too it Nostri, he certainly won plenty, funnily enough, never anything at super level, which kind of makes a joke of super titiles being the reason for making someone a test coach. I mean Robbie Deans got about 5 super titles, and was hardly a success as a test coach ,though seems to be doing bloody well at top club level in Japan.
-
@Dan54 still a better reason than being a friend of the previous coach.
I don't think Dean's is a bad coach. I think Aussie rugby is a difficult employer.@nostrildamus said in Foster:
@Dan54 still a better reason than being a friend of the previous coach.
Christ on a bike, the mental hoops you have to jump through to expect that Foster brings nothing to the table and that Wayne Smith and Steve Hansen had him in the room because they were mates is ridiculous.
I hate defending Foster, he should have gone last year, but it's cheap and shallow to just say 'he's mates with the previous coach'. He was a continuity candidate, and frankly it was not unreasonable to appoint. Risky from the cheap seats, but you could see why they did it. Foster hasn't worked out as a head coach, but he clearly brings a lot to the table - Hansen, Smith and all the current senior players seem to rate him.
also, I just threw up in my mouth a bit.
Really, though, Hansen should have stepped down in 2017, Foster screws the pooch in 18 and 19, and then we get a merit-based selection in 2020. NZR's governance over the last 4 (and arguably 6) years has been awful.
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
@Dan54 still a better reason than being a friend of the previous coach.
Christ on a bike, the mental hoops you have to jump through to expect that Foster brings nothing to the table and that Wayne Smith and Steve Hansen had him in the room because they were mates is ridiculous.
I hate defending Foster, he should have gone last year, but it's cheap and shallow to just say 'he's mates with the previous coach'. He was a continuity candidate, and frankly it was not unreasonable to appoint. Risky from the cheap seats, but you could see why they did it. Foster hasn't worked out as a head coach, but he clearly brings a lot to the table - Hansen, Smith and all the current senior players seem to rate him.
also, I just threw up in my mouth a bit.
Really, though, Hansen should have stepped down in 2017, Foster screws the pooch in 18 and 19, and then we get a merit-based selection in 2020. NZR's governance over the last 4 (and arguably 6) years has been awful.
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
@Dan54 still a better reason than being a friend of the previous coach.
Christ on a bike, the mental hoops you have to jump through to expect that Foster brings nothing to the table and that Wayne Smith and Steve Hansen had him in the room because they were mates is ridiculous.
I hate defending Foster, he should have gone last year, but it's cheap and shallow to just say 'he's mates with the previous coach'. He was a continuity candidate, and frankly it was not unreasonable to appoint. Risky from the cheap seats, but you could see why they did it. Foster hasn't worked out as a head coach, but he clearly brings a lot to the table - Hansen, Smith and all the current senior players seem to rate him.
also, I just threw up in my mouth a bit.
Really, though, Hansen should have stepped down in 2017, Foster screws the pooch in 18 and 19, and then we get a merit-based selection in 2020. NZR's governance over the last 4 (and arguably 6) years has been awful.
I hate defending Foster, he should have gone last year, but it's cheap and shallow to just say 'he's mates with the previous coach'.--I didn't actually say that. But I definitely left it open. So, ok.
What I meant and should have written is, success at a lower level has to be a consideration. And then as an example I wanted to compare it to the criteria they used for Foster. But the only thing I know for a fact that he keeps getting selected is the then coaches* picked him and liked him. He probably interviews well too.
I would like to know what criteria they use, I just don't know what the criteria is.So you think on a Foster thread I shouldn't use him as a comparison or phrase it differently? Ok. But I am still defending Deans here (because that was a cheap and shallow reference) as frankly, he gets some stick here and I still don't know what exactly he did wrong apart from coaching the Wallabies (and beating the All Blacks). That was my point.
*Edit: And senior ABs. Ok that is a good one.
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
@Dan54 still a better reason than being a friend of the previous coach.
Christ on a bike, the mental hoops you have to jump through to expect that Foster brings nothing to the table and that Wayne Smith and Steve Hansen had him in the room because they were mates is ridiculous.
I hate defending Foster, he should have gone last year, but it's cheap and shallow to just say 'he's mates with the previous coach'. He was a continuity candidate, and frankly it was not unreasonable to appoint. Risky from the cheap seats, but you could see why they did it. Foster hasn't worked out as a head coach, but he clearly brings a lot to the table - Hansen, Smith and all the current senior players seem to rate him.
also, I just threw up in my mouth a bit.
Really, though, Hansen should have stepped down in 2017, Foster screws the pooch in 18 and 19, and then we get a merit-based selection in 2020. NZR's governance over the last 4 (and arguably 6) years has been awful.
I hate defending Foster, he should have gone last year, but it's cheap and shallow to just say 'he's mates with the previous coach'.--I didn't actually say that. But I definitely left it open. So, ok.
What I meant and should have written is, success at a lower level has to be a consideration. And then as an example I wanted to compare it to the criteria they used for Foster. But the only thing I know for a fact that he keeps getting selected is the then coaches* picked him and liked him. He probably interviews well too.
I would like to know what criteria they use, I just don't know what the criteria is.So you think on a Foster thread I shouldn't use him as a comparison or phrase it differently? Ok. But I am still defending Deans here (because that was a cheap and shallow reference) as frankly, he gets some stick here and I still don't know what exactly he did wrong apart from coaching the Wallabies (and beating the All Blacks). That was my point.
*Edit: And senior ABs. Ok that is a good one.
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
But I am still defending Deans here (because that was a cheap and shallow reference) as frankly, he gets some stick here and I still don't know what exactly he did wrong apart from coaching the Wallabies (and beating the All Blacks). That was my point.
I'm with you on Deans. Good coach - and you saw how he managed to coax the best out of the Wobbles, despite the political snake pit that is Australian Rugby
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
@Dan54 still a better reason than being a friend of the previous coach.
Christ on a bike, the mental hoops you have to jump through to expect that Foster brings nothing to the table and that Wayne Smith and Steve Hansen had him in the room because they were mates is ridiculous.
I hate defending Foster, he should have gone last year, but it's cheap and shallow to just say 'he's mates with the previous coach'. He was a continuity candidate, and frankly it was not unreasonable to appoint. Risky from the cheap seats, but you could see why they did it. Foster hasn't worked out as a head coach, but he clearly brings a lot to the table - Hansen, Smith and all the current senior players seem to rate him.
also, I just threw up in my mouth a bit.
Really, though, Hansen should have stepped down in 2017, Foster screws the pooch in 18 and 19, and then we get a merit-based selection in 2020. NZR's governance over the last 4 (and arguably 6) years has been awful.
I hate defending Foster, he should have gone last year, but it's cheap and shallow to just say 'he's mates with the previous coach'.--I didn't actually say that. But I definitely left it open. So, ok.
What I meant and should have written is, success at a lower level has to be a consideration. And then as an example I wanted to compare it to the criteria they used for Foster. But the only thing I know for a fact that he keeps getting selected is the then coaches* picked him and liked him. He probably interviews well too.
I would like to know what criteria they use, I just don't know what the criteria is.So you think on a Foster thread I shouldn't use him as a comparison or phrase it differently? Ok. But I am still defending Deans here (because that was a cheap and shallow reference) as frankly, he gets some stick here and I still don't know what exactly he did wrong apart from coaching the Wallabies (and beating the All Blacks). That was my point.
*Edit: And senior ABs. Ok that is a good one.
@nostrildamus I not dissing Deans, I think he was a good coachm especially at Super level, was merely pointing success at lower level shouldn't alway be used as the barometer of a coach. Rassie Erasmus had no great sucess at lower levels same as Eddie Jones, sometimes slightly different skills needed. I alway thought Deans big weakness in coaching was his selection of players, and perhaps what counted against him at higher level. Regardless Deans said he could take Aussie higher up in the world, and farwhatever reason he didn't (a bit like Rennie at this stage)
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
@Dan54 still a better reason than being a friend of the previous coach.
Christ on a bike, the mental hoops you have to jump through to expect that Foster brings nothing to the table and that Wayne Smith and Steve Hansen had him in the room because they were mates is ridiculous.
I hate defending Foster, he should have gone last year, but it's cheap and shallow to just say 'he's mates with the previous coach'. He was a continuity candidate, and frankly it was not unreasonable to appoint. Risky from the cheap seats, but you could see why they did it. Foster hasn't worked out as a head coach, but he clearly brings a lot to the table - Hansen, Smith and all the current senior players seem to rate him.
also, I just threw up in my mouth a bit.
Really, though, Hansen should have stepped down in 2017, Foster screws the pooch in 18 and 19, and then we get a merit-based selection in 2020. NZR's governance over the last 4 (and arguably 6) years has been awful.
I hate defending Foster, he should have gone last year, but it's cheap and shallow to just say 'he's mates with the previous coach'.--I didn't actually say that. But I definitely left it open. So, ok.
What I meant and should have written is, success at a lower level has to be a consideration. And then as an example I wanted to compare it to the criteria they used for Foster. But the only thing I know for a fact that he keeps getting selected is the then coaches* picked him and liked him. He probably interviews well too.
I would like to know what criteria they use, I just don't know what the criteria is.So you think on a Foster thread I shouldn't use him as a comparison or phrase it differently? Ok. But I am still defending Deans here (because that was a cheap and shallow reference) as frankly, he gets some stick here and I still don't know what exactly he did wrong apart from coaching the Wallabies (and beating the All Blacks). That was my point.
*Edit: And senior ABs. Ok that is a good one.
-
I would have happily had Deans as AB coach and certainly ahead of Foster.
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
But I am still defending Deans here (because that was a cheap and shallow reference) as frankly, he gets some stick here and I still don't know what exactly he did wrong apart from coaching the Wallabies (and beating the All Blacks). That was my point.
I'm with you on Deans. Good coach - and you saw how he managed to coax the best out of the Wobbles, despite the political snake pit that is Australian Rugby
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
But I am still defending Deans here (because that was a cheap and shallow reference) as frankly, he gets some stick here and I still don't know what exactly he did wrong apart from coaching the Wallabies (and beating the All Blacks). That was my point.
I'm with you on Deans. Good coach - and you saw how he managed to coax the best out of the Wobbles, despite the political snake pit that is Australian Rugby
In addition do they really have the talent pool that we "supposedly" have? Does Rennie before some of the fern want to throw him under the bus?
-
Probably a lot of timing involved with looking good as a coach . Not talking about any coach in particular, just generalising .
But moving into the right job at the right time taking over the right group of players and vica versa can make or break you .
-
Probably a lot of timing involved with looking good as a coach . Not talking about any coach in particular, just generalising .
But moving into the right job at the right time taking over the right group of players and vica versa can make or break you .
-
It is hard to pinpoint the problem with this current group. The talent is there, they try their hearts out, they have good support, but what happens on the pitch is just not good enough or ruthless enough to get the job done IMO (consistently win against top-tier opposition and win the World Cup). Here is my theory and I think Carlos sees it as well. It seems that the ABs camp has become too comfortable and isolated. They are the "AB family". That absolute ruthlessness and desire to get that 1 or 2 % to get over the line is not there anymore. If they don't play well, and there are few consequences. Once upon a time one bad performance and you were out of the team, possibly forever. Now we have players still there that can be terribly off the pace (Sam Cane is the classic example). Go away to Japan, no worries, you are automatically back despite not showing you are better than others. They are consistently answering their critics by saying they only worry about what is happening inside the camp, etc, etc. Not all bad things of course, maybe it is even a sign of the times and I am a grump, but just maybe it has led to inadequate performances.
Hence I really think a "clean out" is what the ABs have needed since 2019. -
It is hard to pinpoint the problem with this current group. The talent is there, they try their hearts out, they have good support, but what happens on the pitch is just not good enough or ruthless enough to get the job done IMO (consistently win against top-tier opposition and win the World Cup). Here is my theory and I think Carlos sees it as well. It seems that the ABs camp has become too comfortable and isolated. They are the "AB family". That absolute ruthlessness and desire to get that 1 or 2 % to get over the line is not there anymore. If they don't play well, and there are few consequences. Once upon a time one bad performance and you were out of the team, possibly forever. Now we have players still there that can be terribly off the pace (Sam Cane is the classic example). Go away to Japan, no worries, you are automatically back despite not showing you are better than others. They are consistently answering their critics by saying they only worry about what is happening inside the camp, etc, etc. Not all bad things of course, maybe it is even a sign of the times and I am a grump, but just maybe it has led to inadequate performances.
Hence I really think a "clean out" is what the ABs have needed since 2019.@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Foster:
Hence I really think a "clean out" is what the ABs have needed since 2019.
I like the idea of a clean out.. problem is who do you bring in? (assuming you're talking players not coaches..)
-
It is hard to pinpoint the problem with this current group. The talent is there, they try their hearts out, they have good support, but what happens on the pitch is just not good enough or ruthless enough to get the job done IMO (consistently win against top-tier opposition and win the World Cup). Here is my theory and I think Carlos sees it as well. It seems that the ABs camp has become too comfortable and isolated. They are the "AB family". That absolute ruthlessness and desire to get that 1 or 2 % to get over the line is not there anymore. If they don't play well, and there are few consequences. Once upon a time one bad performance and you were out of the team, possibly forever. Now we have players still there that can be terribly off the pace (Sam Cane is the classic example). Go away to Japan, no worries, you are automatically back despite not showing you are better than others. They are consistently answering their critics by saying they only worry about what is happening inside the camp, etc, etc. Not all bad things of course, maybe it is even a sign of the times and I am a grump, but just maybe it has led to inadequate performances.
Hence I really think a "clean out" is what the ABs have needed since 2019. -
It is hard to pinpoint the problem with this current group. The talent is there, they try their hearts out, they have good support, but what happens on the pitch is just not good enough or ruthless enough to get the job done IMO (consistently win against top-tier opposition and win the World Cup). Here is my theory and I think Carlos sees it as well. It seems that the ABs camp has become too comfortable and isolated. They are the "AB family". That absolute ruthlessness and desire to get that 1 or 2 % to get over the line is not there anymore. If they don't play well, and there are few consequences. Once upon a time one bad performance and you were out of the team, possibly forever. Now we have players still there that can be terribly off the pace (Sam Cane is the classic example). Go away to Japan, no worries, you are automatically back despite not showing you are better than others. They are consistently answering their critics by saying they only worry about what is happening inside the camp, etc, etc. Not all bad things of course, maybe it is even a sign of the times and I am a grump, but just maybe it has led to inadequate performances.
Hence I really think a "clean out" is what the ABs have needed since 2019.@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Foster:
It is hard to pinpoint the problem with this current group. The talent is there, they try their hearts out, they have good support, but what happens on the pitch is just not good enough or ruthless enough to get the job done IMO (consistently win against top-tier opposition and win the World Cup). Here is my theory and I think Carlos sees it as well. It seems that the ABs camp has become too comfortable and isolated. They are the "AB family". That absolute ruthlessness and desire to get that 1 or 2 % to get over the line is not there anymore. If they don't play well, and there are few consequences. Once upon a time one bad performance and you were out of the team, possibly forever. Now we have players still there that can be terribly off the pace (Sam Cane is the classic example). Go away to Japan, no worries, you are automatically back despite not showing you are better than others. They are consistently answering their critics by saying they only worry about what is happening inside the camp, etc, etc. Not all bad things of course, maybe it is even a sign of the times and I am a grump, but just maybe it has led to inadequate performances.
Hence I really think a "clean out" is what the ABs have needed since 2019.A lot to agree with there.
I think I missed Carlos’ comments, anyone link easily?
-
I'd have to say that from the heights of 2011, which you could argue was our best All Black team ever that our current day All Blacks are literally results and history-wise the worst All Black team we've ever had.
The decline has been remarkable.
The asleep at the wheel, don't worry it will come right even when it doesn't approach has been literally a marvel to behold.
-
I'd have to say that from the heights of 2011, which you could argue was our best All Black team ever that our current day All Blacks are literally results and history-wise the worst All Black team we've ever had.
The decline has been remarkable.
The asleep at the wheel, don't worry it will come right even when it doesn't approach has been literally a marvel to behold.
@Windows97 said in Foster:
The asleep at the wheel, don't worry it will come right even when it doesn't approach has been literally a marvel to behold.
it has exposed the sycophancy of modern rugby media though ... there is a lot of glitter being sprayed on turds these days
