Foster, Robertson etc
-
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.”
-
@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.”
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@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.”
Now you are just changing tack. You OP was that when Foster had nothing to do with the side and Schmidt took over the same team had drastically different results. That apparently showed that Foster brings the team down.
Also implied that the other results would have been different which totally ignores the fact the there were two teams involved and one improved. The Ireland changes and tweaks in play were a masterpiece of coaching and player adaptation after analysis of our (Schmidt’s according to you) game. You are reluctant to give them any credit. -
@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 said in Foster, Robertson etc:
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?
Not really. I've consistently said Foster inherited big problems which needed time to fix and that would have impacted any coach, but also that he wasn't the man to fix them and should have gone after Ireland III.
Wayne Smith's history has got bugger-all to do with anything.
-
@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?
Like the Irish team was shit and the mighty AB's would always wallop them if they just picked the right coach?
I've lived in the UK for decades with the accusations that AB fans are arrogant and think all other teams are inferior or only get lucky wins. Can't think how the UK media could get that idea, can you?
-
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
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?
Not really. I've consistently said Foster inherited big problems which needed time to fix and that would have impacted any coach, but also that he wasn't the man to fix them and should have gone after Ireland III.
Wayne Smith's history has got bugger-all to do with anything.
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
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?
I've consistently said Foster inherited big problems which needed time to fix and that would have impacted any coach, but also that he wasn't the man to fix them and should have gone after Ireland III.
But you are missing the point that Foster was central to creating those problems in the first place.
It's well documented that Foster's role was expanded in the last 2-3 years of his Hansen tenure. Foster was given authority over game-plan, strategy, co-ordinating training sessions -- and this coincided with the All Black's decline over Hansen's last few years.
Hansen said it himself that in his final year Foster was effectively running most things as Hansen had transitioned into a much less hands-on role, moving into the background at that stage.
And 2019 was a dire year, that's what happens when you entrust underqualified mates to influential positions.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
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?
I've consistently said Foster inherited big problems which needed time to fix and that would have impacted any coach, but also that he wasn't the man to fix them and should have gone after Ireland III.
But you are missing the point that Foster was central to creating those problems in the first place.
It's well documented that Foster's role was expanded in the last 2-3 years of his Hansen tenure. Foster was given authority over game-plan, strategy, co-ordinating training sessions -- and this coincided with the All Black's decline over Hansen's last few years.
Hansen said it himself that in his final year Foster was effectively running most things as Hansen had transitioned into a much less hands-on role, moving into the background at that stage.
And 2019 was a dire year, that's what happens when you entrust underqualified mates to influential positions.
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster, Robertson etc:
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?
I've consistently said Foster inherited big problems which needed time to fix and that would have impacted any coach, but also that he wasn't the man to fix them and should have gone after Ireland III.
But you are missing the point that Foster was central to creating those problems in the first place.
So The Head Coach isn't responsible for causing problems then?
It's well documented that Foster's role was expanded in the last 2-3 years of his Hansen tenure. Foster was given authority over game-plan, strategy, co-ordinating training sessions -- and this coincided with the All Black's decline over Hansen's last few years.
Apparently not....
Hansen said it himself that in his final year Foster was effectively running most things as Hansen had transitioned into a much less hands-on role, moving into the background at that stage.
Oh wait....so now the Head Coach (Hansen) IS responsible
And 2019 was a dire year, that's what happens when you entrust underqualified mates to influential positions.
Yep. The Mighty All Blacks would smash anyone if only they'd pick your bloke as Coach.
