Foster, Robertson etc
-
@Victor-Meldrew To me it reads as a person with a strongly held opinion on a topic is annoyed that other people are disagreeing with him. That happens to me all the time, because I have strong opinions, but I don't go round calling my opponents "arrogant" for it.
This is not Kremlinology, where the people involved are secretive and the decisions made opaque and trying to work out what is happening is all guesswork.
We are discussing decisions made by people with long track records, who explain their thoughts on national media. In a country small enough that many of us actually know some of them.
We all know by now that NZR is a train wreck as an organisation, and I seriously think the Fern -- in this instance -- would have managed this whole thing better than it has. So I'm not going to defer to the NZR as being experts. They have blown that long ago.
@Chester-Draws said in Foster, Robertson etc:
We all know by now that NZR is a train wreck as an organisation,
Do we? Isn't that just an opinion?
-
@Chester-Draws said in Foster, Robertson etc:
We all know by now that NZR is a train wreck as an organisation,
Do we? Isn't that just an opinion?
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chester-Draws said in Foster, Robertson etc:
We all know by now that NZR is a train wreck as an organisation,
Do we? Isn't that just an opinion?
We know how bad the board is with their decisions: directly approaching Australian super sides, the early reappointment of Foster, etc.
The organisation seems to follow behind. But it's an opinion, kinda like gravity
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chester-Draws said in Foster, Robertson etc:
We all know by now that NZR is a train wreck as an organisation,
Do we? Isn't that just an opinion?
We know how bad the board is with their decisions: directly approaching Australian super sides, the early reappointment of Foster, etc.
The organisation seems to follow behind. But it's an opinion, kinda like gravity
@nzzp said in Foster, Robertson etc:
The organisation seems to follow behind. But it's an opinion, kinda like gravity
I sense the gravitational pull is dependent on who you want as AB coach...
-
@nzzp said in Foster, Robertson etc:
The organisation seems to follow behind. But it's an opinion, kinda like gravity
I sense the gravitational pull is dependent on who you want as AB coach...
Did no-one notice the massive disaster that was the Black Ferns? Saved only by having Wayne Smith available. Without him our "home" world cup would likely have been an epic disaster.
Did the dance around the Silver Lake deal, that was done, then undone, then done again go un-noticed?
For a while there even our Sevens teams were struggling.
We've managed to lose South Africa from Super Rugby in the last couple of years too. Not that Australia are very happy with us either.
Anyone want to tell me how awesome grass-roots rugby is going in NZ at the moment?
In what sphere does anyone think NZR has done well in the last five years?
-
Did no-one notice the massive disaster that was the Black Ferns? Saved only by having Wayne Smith available. Without him our "home" world cup would likely have been an epic disaster.
Did the dance around the Silver Lake deal, that was done, then undone, then done again go un-noticed?
For a while there even our Sevens teams were struggling.
We've managed to lose South Africa from Super Rugby in the last couple of years too. Not that Australia are very happy with us either.
Anyone want to tell me how awesome grass-roots rugby is going in NZ at the moment?
In what sphere does anyone think NZR has done well in the last five years?
-
Did no-one notice the massive disaster that was the Black Ferns? Saved only by having Wayne Smith available. Without him our "home" world cup would likely have been an epic disaster.
Did the dance around the Silver Lake deal, that was done, then undone, then done again go un-noticed?
For a while there even our Sevens teams were struggling.
We've managed to lose South Africa from Super Rugby in the last couple of years too. Not that Australia are very happy with us either.
Anyone want to tell me how awesome grass-roots rugby is going in NZ at the moment?
In what sphere does anyone think NZR has done well in the last five years?
Still only opinion. And blaming on-field performance on NZR or coaching ignores the improvement across the board on other countries.
-
@Chester-Draws NZR did instigate a pretty brutal review of the women’s game and reacted accordingly afterwards.
Yes, they dropped the ball in the first place but they also did the repairs -
@Crucial always easier to fix something you broke than do the work to ensure it doesnt break
@taniwharugby said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial always easier to fix something you broke than do the work to ensure it doesnt break
I’m not letting them off the hook at all. The treated the women’s game very poorly and ruined a coach as well as a team
-
Still only opinion. And blaming on-field performance on NZR or coaching ignores the improvement across the board on other countries.
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Still only opinion. And blaming on-field performance on NZR or coaching ignores the improvement across the board on other countries.
Weren't you one of the few on here trying to claim previous coaches did worse despite Foster's record being the worst of the professional-era?
The Wayne Smith era was up against a Wallabies team that was a once-in-a-generation GOAT side and the Boks were also very very good. Also the Poms had their dad's army side under Woodward and they were also bloody good. This current mob was getting beat by teams that weren't even as good as them.
Also Wayne Smith was just 42, had only been coaching professionally for 3 years when he took over ABs in 2000, he also didn't have a backroom staff (apart from Tony Gilbert) & it's highlighted in Oliver's book how Wayne had to stay up to the early hours of the morning pouring over analysis because they didn't have any analysts either (unlike Mitchell, Henry, etc. afterwards).
So Smith clearly had to juggle a lot more responsibilities as AB's head coach than Foster did, Smith also coached both attack and defense - in addition to head coach & team analyst. In contrast Foster at 54, (12 years on Smith in 2000) with a complete team of backroom staff (including analysts) and with 18 years of prior coaching should've had the necessary experience & knowledge to succeed by then - however he didn't.
Wayne Smith had very legitimate excuses for his OK record at the time, Foster simply didn't.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Still only opinion. And blaming on-field performance on NZR or coaching ignores the improvement across the board on other countries.
Weren't you one of the few on here trying to claim previous coaches did worse despite Foster's record being the worst of the professional-era?
The Wayne Smith era was up against a Wallabies team that was a once-in-a-generation GOAT side and the Boks were also very very good. Also the Poms had their dad's army side under Woodward and they were also bloody good. This current mob was getting beat by teams that weren't even as good as them.
Also Wayne Smith was just 42, had only been coaching professionally for 3 years when he took over ABs in 2000, he also didn't have a backroom staff (apart from Tony Gilbert) & it's highlighted in Oliver's book how Wayne had to stay up to the early hours of the morning pouring over analysis because they didn't have any analysts either (unlike Mitchell, Henry, etc. afterwards).
So Smith clearly had to juggle a lot more responsibilities as AB's head coach than Foster did, Smith also coached both attack and defense - in addition to head coach & team analyst. In contrast Foster at 54, (12 years on Smith in 2000) with a complete team of backroom staff (including analysts) and with 18 years of prior coaching should've had the necessary experience & knowledge to succeed by then - however he didn't.
Wayne Smith had very legitimate excuses for his OK record at the time, Foster simply didn't.
@kiwi_expat you have just excused other refs based on their opponents being “once in a lifetime “ versions but are happy to ignore an Irish side that has never been anywhere near as good and France side like we haven’t seen in a long time. Argentina also playing at peak levels.
Can’t have it both ways -
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Still only opinion. And blaming on-field performance on NZR or coaching ignores the improvement across the board on other countries.
Weren't you one of the few on here trying to claim previous coaches did worse despite Foster's record being the worst of the professional-era?
The Wayne Smith era was up against a Wallabies team that was a once-in-a-generation GOAT side and the Boks were also very very good. Also the Poms had their dad's army side under Woodward and they were also bloody good. This current mob was getting beat by teams that weren't even as good as them.
Also Wayne Smith was just 42, had only been coaching professionally for 3 years when he took over ABs in 2000, he also didn't have a backroom staff (apart from Tony Gilbert) & it's highlighted in Oliver's book how Wayne had to stay up to the early hours of the morning pouring over analysis because they didn't have any analysts either (unlike Mitchell, Henry, etc. afterwards).
So Smith clearly had to juggle a lot more responsibilities as AB's head coach than Foster did, Smith also coached both attack and defense - in addition to head coach & team analyst. In contrast Foster at 54, (12 years on Smith in 2000) with a complete team of backroom staff (including analysts) and with 18 years of prior coaching should've had the necessary experience & knowledge to succeed by then - however he didn't.
Wayne Smith had very legitimate excuses for his OK record at the time, Foster simply didn't.
@kiwi_expat Yes and the team drivers were not the most professional either. We had a gaping hole in the 10 channel on defence that the French had splintered to pieces in '99 and it was very much even leakier in the Smith year and a bit.
-
@kiwi_expat you have just excused other refs based on their opponents being “once in a lifetime “ versions but are happy to ignore an Irish side that has never been anywhere near as good and France side like we haven’t seen in a long time. Argentina also playing at peak levels.
Can’t have it both ways@Crucial The Irish side we beat 42-16 in the 1st test while Schmidt filled-in for Foster & wasn't involved in the other 2 tests, just a coincidence?
-
@Crucial The Irish side we beat 42-16 in the 1st test while Schmidt filled-in for Foster & wasn't involved in the other 2 tests, just a coincidence?
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial The Irish side we beat 42-16 in the 1st test while Schmidt filled-in for Foster & wasn't involved in the other 2 tests, just a coincidence?
scott hansons crusaders better than robertsons then?
-
@Crucial The Irish side we beat 42-16 in the 1st test while Schmidt filled-in for Foster & wasn't involved in the other 2 tests, just a coincidence?
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial The Irish side we beat 42-16 in the 1st test while Schmidt filled-in for Foster & wasn't involved in the other 2 tests, just a coincidence?
Same Irish side though. One good enough to adjust after the first test and not allow the same game.
You have to at least give the opposing teams credit for beating us. Otherwise it is plain arrogance.
There is no denying that certain teams that have not previously been much chop are currently very good. -
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Crucial The Irish side we beat 42-16 in the 1st test while Schmidt filled-in for Foster & wasn't involved in the other 2 tests, just a coincidence?
scott hansons crusaders better than robertsons then?
@ploughboy no because Schmidt ran the training week with Foster in isolation, he prepared the team.
-
@ploughboy no because Schmidt ran the training week with Foster in isolation, he prepared the team.
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@ploughboy no because Schmidt ran the training week with Foster in isolation
how many training did rabertson do?
-
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@ploughboy no because Schmidt ran the training week with Foster in isolation
how many training did rabertson do?
@ploughboy said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@ploughboy no because Schmidt ran the training week with Foster in isolation
how many training did rabertson do?
The 3 they ran in Chch before they left on Wednesday night.
-
@ploughboy no because Schmidt ran the training week with Foster in isolation, he prepared the team.
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@ploughboy no because Schmidt ran the training week with Foster in isolation, he prepared the team.
Don’t retell the reality to suit yourself. Foster selected the team (including introducing Scooter at 6) and was involved in the preparation through zoom calls. He gave the instructions and Schmidt carried them out.
-
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@ploughboy no because Schmidt ran the training week with Foster in isolation, he prepared the team.
Don’t retell the reality to suit yourself. Foster selected the team (including introducing Scooter at 6) and was involved in the preparation through zoom calls. He gave the instructions and Schmidt carried them out.
@Crucial there's a difference between talking over Zoom and being on-the-grass actively coaching the team.
Joe Schmidt's attention to detail & driving standards is a real feature of his coaching and he would've certainly brought a lot of that during the training week.
“He was a game changer for me,” Smith told SENZ Breakfast. “The way he saw the game, he had clips from training, he had clips from games way back, he really just gets rugby and he got my mindset.”
“Joe wasn’t showing me clips of me running, he was just showing me opportunities, he was showing me what other nines had done and if it’s in your brain that’s what happens, things just react.”
“If I hadn’t gone to get that help I don’t think I would’ve been able to find some form again at the end.”
