Foster, Robertson etc
-
@Tim said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Chief executive Mark Robinson has presented a recommendation that the process to find the next All Blacks coach begin this month, and the unprecedented plan will be signed off on February 23 when the board next meets.
Look here it is - which is in the future...
So officially the process is yet to start.
Yet you as an apologist for the NZRU say it's already started.
So which one is it??
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Tim said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Chief executive Mark Robinson has presented a recommendation that the process to find the next All Blacks coach begin this month, and the unprecedented plan will be signed off on February 23 when the board next meets.
Look here it is - which is in the future...
So officially the process is yet to start.
Yet you as an apologist for the NZRU say it's already started.
So which one is it??
What does "apologist for the NZRU" even mean? He just disagrees with you, get a grip.
-
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Tim said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Chief executive Mark Robinson has presented a recommendation that the process to find the next All Blacks coach begin this month, and the unprecedented plan will be signed off on February 23 when the board next meets.
Look here it is - which is in the future...
So officially the process is yet to start.
Yet you as an apologist for the NZRU say it's already started.
So which one is it??
What does "apologist for the NZRU" even mean? He just disagrees with you, get a grip.
@Kirwan said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Tim said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Chief executive Mark Robinson has presented a recommendation that the process to find the next All Blacks coach begin this month, and the unprecedented plan will be signed off on February 23 when the board next meets.
Look here it is - which is in the future...
So officially the process is yet to start.
Yet you as an apologist for the NZRU say it's already started.
So which one is it??
What does "apologist for the NZRU" even mean? He just disagrees with you, get a grip.
An apologist is someone who speaks on someone else's behalf in order to explain a theory or their way of thinking. It's hardly a derogatory or inflammatory term.
-
Part of where NZR shoot themselves in the foot is that they don't release decision by dates.
If they said we will make a decision on the AB coaching role by XX date then it would be simply a matter of saying "we are running a process and by XX date you will all have your answer."
That is all anyone would have to say.
But they leave it open and wishy washing and apparently talk to this person and that person "behind closed doors" while also apparently "running a process" and apparently this year "that process" has changed and wonder why there's a lot of speculation and people filling in the gaps.
They've created this monster themselves and I have little sympathy for them.
I actually have quite a lot of sympathy for any poor sod caught up in this whole AB coach debacle - including Foster himself.
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Part of where NZR shoot themselves in the foot is that they don't release decision by dates.
If they said we will make a decision on the AB coaching role by XX date then it would be simply a matter of saying "we are running a process and by XX date you will all have your answer."
That is all anyone would have to say.
But they leave it open and wishy washing and apparently talk to this person and that person "behind closed doors" while also apparently "running a process" and apparently this year "that process" has changed and wonder why there's a lot of speculation and people filling in the gaps.
They've created this monster themselves and I have little sympathy for them.
I actually have quite a lot of sympathy for any poor sod caught up in this whole AB coach debacle - including Foster himself.
Yep but what date, I keep repeating, why do they have to tell you and I who the AB coach is a year before he takes the gig. I have never known rugby boards anywhere saying you we will release the info on such and such a date. It's only a few self important people think they need to be told , but NZR or any other rugby board don't generally set dates, as they have plenty of time and need to check everything out.
-
@Kirwan said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Tim said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Chief executive Mark Robinson has presented a recommendation that the process to find the next All Blacks coach begin this month, and the unprecedented plan will be signed off on February 23 when the board next meets.
Look here it is - which is in the future...
So officially the process is yet to start.
Yet you as an apologist for the NZRU say it's already started.
So which one is it??
What does "apologist for the NZRU" even mean? He just disagrees with you, get a grip.
An apologist is someone who speaks on someone else's behalf in order to explain a theory or their way of thinking. It's hardly a derogatory or inflammatory term.
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kirwan said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Tim said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Chief executive Mark Robinson has presented a recommendation that the process to find the next All Blacks coach begin this month, and the unprecedented plan will be signed off on February 23 when the board next meets.
Look here it is - which is in the future...
So officially the process is yet to start.
Yet you as an apologist for the NZRU say it's already started.
So which one is it??
What does "apologist for the NZRU" even mean? He just disagrees with you, get a grip.
An apologist is someone who speaks on someone else's behalf in order to explain a theory or their way of thinking. It's hardly a derogatory or inflammatory term.
Definition: "a person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial"
We are talking about an organisation hiring an employee, hardly the end of the world.
-
@TheMojoman said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@taniwharugby said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Tim you have to wonder if Foster had any intention to stay on anyway, win or lose.
Nope, times up. There’s the door.
Yeah - in the spirit of the thread - to reiterate what I said 6 months ago.
NZRU - "Ian - this is your shot at the RWC. Tell us what you need. We want you to win it and we are supporting you all the way. But, afterwards, we are changing direction regardless of the result, because your record in the interim hasn't been good enough."
Ian might not like it, but it's a pretty fair stance.
Mitch got sacked with an 82% record. Wayne Smith got sacked with a 70% record. Fozzie's at 68% - a few percentage points off the (Uncle Laurie's) worst winning record of the past 40 years.
-
@Chris-B said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@TheMojoman said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@taniwharugby said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Tim you have to wonder if Foster had any intention to stay on anyway, win or lose.
Nope, times up. There’s the door.
Yeah - in the spirit of the thread - to reiterate what I said 6 months ago.
NZRU - "Ian - this is your shot at the RWC. Tell us what you need. We want you to win it and we are supporting you all the way. But, afterwards, we are changing direction regardless of the result, because your record in the interim hasn't been good enough."
Ian might not like it, but it's a pretty fair stance.
Mitch got sacked with an 82% record. Wayne Smith got sacked with a 70% record. Fozzie's at 68% - a few percentage points off the (Uncle Laurie's) worst winning record of the past 40 years.
Is Wayne Smith really above Fozzie, AND got sacked for that record? I thought Fozzie had a 71% record (with 2 draws), so they are equal - but Fozzie has exactly double the games. John Hart was around 73%. Was Mitch actually sacked for his 'record'?
Farrell and Galthie are a step above that, as was Rod Macqueen, and Eddie Jones by a tad - but nobody else besides Hansen and Henry and Mitch. There are some well respected coaches with a worse record than Fozzie.
-
@Tim said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Chief executive Mark Robinson has presented a recommendation that the process to find the next All Blacks coach begin this month, and the unprecedented plan will be signed off on February 23 when the board next meets.
Look here it is - which is in the future...
So officially the process is yet to start.
Yet you as an apologist for the NZRU say it's already started.
So which one is it??
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Tim said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Chief executive Mark Robinson has presented a recommendation that the process to find the next All Blacks coach begin this month, and the unprecedented plan will be signed off on February 23 when the board next meets.
Look here it is - which is in the future...
So officially the process is yet to start.
Yet you as an apologist for the NZRU say it's already started.
So which one is it??
Not sure if you understand what 'Officially' actually means Windows, I will give you an example. The All Black squad have been in camp traing, getting ready for RC and WC. Now that is not an official traing session for eithet tournament, but preparing things for when the 'official' team/squad is named and more detailed coaching takes place. It very good sense to do prepary work before starting the job proper!!
No thanks necessary mate, I like to help people get their mind sorted!:beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes: -
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kirwan said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Tim said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Chief executive Mark Robinson has presented a recommendation that the process to find the next All Blacks coach begin this month, and the unprecedented plan will be signed off on February 23 when the board next meets.
Look here it is - which is in the future...
So officially the process is yet to start.
Yet you as an apologist for the NZRU say it's already started.
So which one is it??
What does "apologist for the NZRU" even mean? He just disagrees with you, get a grip.
An apologist is someone who speaks on someone else's behalf in order to explain a theory or their way of thinking. It's hardly a derogatory or inflammatory term.
Definition: "a person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial"
We are talking about an organisation hiring an employee, hardly the end of the world.
@Kirwan said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kirwan said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Tim said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Chief executive Mark Robinson has presented a recommendation that the process to find the next All Blacks coach begin this month, and the unprecedented plan will be signed off on February 23 when the board next meets.
Look here it is - which is in the future...
So officially the process is yet to start.
Yet you as an apologist for the NZRU say it's already started.
So which one is it??
What does "apologist for the NZRU" even mean? He just disagrees with you, get a grip.
An apologist is someone who speaks on someone else's behalf in order to explain a theory or their way of thinking. It's hardly a derogatory or inflammatory term.
Definition: "a person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial"
We are talking about an organisation hiring an employee, hardly the end of the world.
And all I did was use a non offensive word in context, which isn't the end of the world either
-
@Kirwan said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kirwan said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Tim said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Chief executive Mark Robinson has presented a recommendation that the process to find the next All Blacks coach begin this month, and the unprecedented plan will be signed off on February 23 when the board next meets.
Look here it is - which is in the future...
So officially the process is yet to start.
Yet you as an apologist for the NZRU say it's already started.
So which one is it??
What does "apologist for the NZRU" even mean? He just disagrees with you, get a grip.
An apologist is someone who speaks on someone else's behalf in order to explain a theory or their way of thinking. It's hardly a derogatory or inflammatory term.
Definition: "a person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial"
We are talking about an organisation hiring an employee, hardly the end of the world.
And all I did was use a non offensive word in context, which isn't the end of the world either
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kirwan said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kirwan said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Tim said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Chief executive Mark Robinson has presented a recommendation that the process to find the next All Blacks coach begin this month, and the unprecedented plan will be signed off on February 23 when the board next meets.
Look here it is - which is in the future...
So officially the process is yet to start.
Yet you as an apologist for the NZRU say it's already started.
So which one is it??
What does "apologist for the NZRU" even mean? He just disagrees with you, get a grip.
An apologist is someone who speaks on someone else's behalf in order to explain a theory or their way of thinking. It's hardly a derogatory or inflammatory term.
Definition: "a person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial"
We are talking about an organisation hiring an employee, hardly the end of the world.
And all I did was use a non offensive word in context, which isn't the end of the world either
Nah, you start branched off into an ad hominem argument using words like apologist instead of just arguing the point. Am bored enough to point it out.
-
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kirwan said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kirwan said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Tim said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Chief executive Mark Robinson has presented a recommendation that the process to find the next All Blacks coach begin this month, and the unprecedented plan will be signed off on February 23 when the board next meets.
Look here it is - which is in the future...
So officially the process is yet to start.
Yet you as an apologist for the NZRU say it's already started.
So which one is it??
What does "apologist for the NZRU" even mean? He just disagrees with you, get a grip.
An apologist is someone who speaks on someone else's behalf in order to explain a theory or their way of thinking. It's hardly a derogatory or inflammatory term.
Definition: "a person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial"
We are talking about an organisation hiring an employee, hardly the end of the world.
And all I did was use a non offensive word in context, which isn't the end of the world either
Nah, you start branched off into an ad hominem argument using words like apologist instead of just arguing the point. Am bored enough to point it out.
@Kirwan I used Tim's quote and the reply popped up as a reply to Tim.
I wasn't actually talking to Tim, so if that's the ad hominem attack my apologies to Tim.
I still however enjoy the use of the word apologist in everyday conversations and hope to use it in the future with-out causing furore.
-
@Chris-B said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Mitch got sacked with an 82% record. Wayne Smith got sacked with a 70% record.
Good post, but just to add re the quoted bits, there were reasons.
@booboo said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris-B said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Mitch got sacked with an 82% record. Wayne Smith got sacked with a 70% record.
Good post, but just to add re the quoted bits, there were reasons.
Actually not quite correct, Smith actually resigned and wasn't reappointed which I think we can all agree isn't getting sacked! I personally would of reappointed him myself, but have to admit my opinion rightfully wasn't asked by NZR.
-
@Kirwan I used Tim's quote and the reply popped up as a reply to Tim.
I wasn't actually talking to Tim, so if that's the ad hominem attack my apologies to Tim.
I still however enjoy the use of the word apologist in everyday conversations and hope to use it in the future with-out causing furore.
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kirwan I used Tim's quote and the reply popped up as a reply to Tim.
I wasn't actually talking to Tim, so if that's the ad hominem attack my apologies to Tim.
I still however enjoy the use of the word apologist in everyday conversations and hope to use it in the future with-out causing furore.
if your using the term "apologist" that often in everyday conversations.....is there a chance you're the problem?
-
@Windows97 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Kirwan I used Tim's quote and the reply popped up as a reply to Tim.
I wasn't actually talking to Tim, so if that's the ad hominem attack my apologies to Tim.
I still however enjoy the use of the word apologist in everyday conversations and hope to use it in the future with-out causing furore.
if your using the term "apologist" that often in everyday conversations.....is there a chance you're the problem?
I guess it depends on whether you are trying to imply that they are a bit of a tit.
If so, then it could be the company Windows is keeping?
-
@booboo said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris-B said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Mitch got sacked with an 82% record. Wayne Smith got sacked with a 70% record.
Good post, but just to add re the quoted bits, there were reasons.
Actually not quite correct, Smith actually resigned and wasn't reappointed which I think we can all agree isn't getting sacked! I personally would of reappointed him myself, but have to admit my opinion rightfully wasn't asked by NZR.
@Dan54 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@booboo said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris-B said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Mitch got sacked with an 82% record. Wayne Smith got sacked with a 70% record.
Good post, but just to add re the quoted bits, there were reasons.
Actually not quite correct, Smith actually resigned and wasn't reappointed which I think we can all agree isn't getting sacked! I personally would of reappointed him myself, but have to admit my opinion rightfully wasn't asked by NZR.
Splitting hairs. He reapplied for his job and didn't get it, that's effectively being sacked. Just in a touchy feely way.
-
Being "not re-appointed" as a coach? Oh, how fancy. Let's call it what it really is - a politically correct way of saying "fired". Because, after all, what's the point in being straightforward when we can beat around the bush and use euphemisms, right?
And don't even get me started on the "consequences" of not being re-appointed. Oh, the horror! The coach might have trouble finding a job in the future. Heaven forbid! I'm sure no one has ever faced challenges in their career before.
In conclusion, let's not sugarcoat things and call a spade a spade. If a coach isn't being re-appointed, it's the same thing as being fired. The end.
-
Has anyone picked up on the very real possibility that Razor was taking the piss out of the media?
First the random Bula then saying NZR will be making an appointment announcement in the next few days (which they did with Bunting announced for the BFs)He’s pulling our legs but it backfired on him slightly.
-
@Dan54 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@booboo said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris-B said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Mitch got sacked with an 82% record. Wayne Smith got sacked with a 70% record.
Good post, but just to add re the quoted bits, there were reasons.
Actually not quite correct, Smith actually resigned and wasn't reappointed which I think we can all agree isn't getting sacked! I personally would of reappointed him myself, but have to admit my opinion rightfully wasn't asked by NZR.
Splitting hairs. He reapplied for his job and didn't get it, that's effectively being sacked. Just in a touchy feely way.
@Kirwan said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Dan54 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@booboo said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris-B said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Mitch got sacked with an 82% record. Wayne Smith got sacked with a 70% record.
Good post, but just to add re the quoted bits, there were reasons.
Actually not quite correct, Smith actually resigned and wasn't reappointed which I think we can all agree isn't getting sacked! I personally would of reappointed him myself, but have to admit my opinion rightfully wasn't asked by NZR.
Splitting hairs. He reapplied for his job and didn't get it, that's effectively being sacked. Just in a touchy feely way.
I agree up to point, but remember how an awful lot of people just said if was pulling the plug after a loss he didn't deserve job! There was so much shit going down then over the fact he didn't see out contract. As I said I was all for him staying in job, but by christ there many people who wanted him gone and Mitchell getting the job!! Of course now 21 years later, everyone would of kept him on, how many of you argued for it in 2001?
-
@ARHS said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris-B said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@TheMojoman said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@taniwharugby said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Tim you have to wonder if Foster had any intention to stay on anyway, win or lose.
Nope, times up. There’s the door.
Yeah - in the spirit of the thread - to reiterate what I said 6 months ago.
NZRU - "Ian - this is your shot at the RWC. Tell us what you need. We want you to win it and we are supporting you all the way. But, afterwards, we are changing direction regardless of the result, because your record in the interim hasn't been good enough."
Ian might not like it, but it's a pretty fair stance.
Mitch got sacked with an 82% record. Wayne Smith got sacked with a 70% record. Fozzie's at 68% - a few percentage points off the (Uncle Laurie's) worst winning record of the past 40 years.
Is Wayne Smith really above Fozzie, AND got sacked for that record? I thought Fozzie had a 71% record (with 2 draws), so they are equal - but Fozzie has exactly double the games. John Hart was around 73%. Was Mitch actually sacked for his 'record'?
Farrell and Galthie are a step above that, as was Rod Macqueen, and Eddie Jones by a tad - but nobody else besides Hansen and Henry and Mitch. There are some well respected coaches with a worse record than Fozzie.
%s are just a stat the means little without deeper analysis. A coach in the 6N will have a different set of games than a 3N coach to measure. Relative strengths of regular opponents the same. That makes even the comparison of NZ eras difficult. Some coaches have benefitted from the days of NH teams sending development sides over here. Some have faced Lions teams etc etc.
Judging solely on 'the ABs should not lose' is a bit arrogant as well.
Performance is definitely a KPI but performance isn't solely winning %
@Crucial said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@ARHS said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris-B said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@TheMojoman said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@taniwharugby said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Tim you have to wonder if Foster had any intention to stay on anyway, win or lose.
Nope, times up. There’s the door.
Yeah - in the spirit of the thread - to reiterate what I said 6 months ago.
NZRU - "Ian - this is your shot at the RWC. Tell us what you need. We want you to win it and we are supporting you all the way. But, afterwards, we are changing direction regardless of the result, because your record in the interim hasn't been good enough."
Ian might not like it, but it's a pretty fair stance.
Mitch got sacked with an 82% record. Wayne Smith got sacked with a 70% record. Fozzie's at 68% - a few percentage points off the (Uncle Laurie's) worst winning record of the past 40 years.
Is Wayne Smith really above Fozzie, AND got sacked for that record? I thought Fozzie had a 71% record (with 2 draws), so they are equal - but Fozzie has exactly double the games. John Hart was around 73%. Was Mitch actually sacked for his 'record'?
Farrell and Galthie are a step above that, as was Rod Macqueen, and Eddie Jones by a tad - but nobody else besides Hansen and Henry and Mitch. There are some well respected coaches with a worse record than Fozzie.
%s are just a stat the means little without deeper analysis. A coach in the 6N will have a different set of games than a 3N coach to measure. Relative strengths of regular opponents the same. That makes even the comparison of NZ eras difficult. Some coaches have benefitted from the days of NH teams sending development sides over here. Some have faced Lions teams etc etc.
Judging solely on 'the ABs should not lose' is a bit arrogant as well.
Performance is definitely a KPI but performance isn't solely winning %
Yeah - I couldn't be arsed typing out all Fozzie's shortcomings in terms of results.
I don't really know of anyone who wants him to stay, except maybe a few who have a "If he wins the World Cup" proviso.
The nub of my post is that I don't think he's earned that proviso.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_national_rugby_union_team
I used these coaching stats - I thought they'd given Fozzie a credit for having a draw more than Laurie, - but it might just be rounding by different editors. His record appears nonetheless to be fractionally better.
-
@Dan54 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@booboo said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris-B said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Mitch got sacked with an 82% record. Wayne Smith got sacked with a 70% record.
Good post, but just to add re the quoted bits, there were reasons.
Actually not quite correct, Smith actually resigned and wasn't reappointed which I think we can all agree isn't getting sacked! I personally would of reappointed him myself, but have to admit my opinion rightfully wasn't asked by NZR.
Splitting hairs. He reapplied for his job and didn't get it, that's effectively being sacked. Just in a touchy feely way.
-
Splitting hairs.
That's the Fern in a nutshell.
Time to mute this thread again. It's annoying me immensely.
@Stargazer said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Splitting hairs.
That's the Fern in a nutshell.
Time to mute this thread again. It's annoying me immensely.
Threads are not airports, no need to announce your departure.
