Foster, Robertson etc
-
@Rapido I wasn't in favour of Fozzies appointment, but given NZR's mismanagement think the outcome is the best, pragmatic result.
However without wanting to denigrate Razor's achievements or up Fosters this is the Chiefs team that made the 2009 Final
CHIEFS:
FB 15 Mils Muliaina
RW 14 Lelia Masaga
CT 13 Richard Kahui
SF 12 Callum Bruce
LW 11 Dwayne Sweeney
FF 10 Stephen Donald
HB 9 Toby Morland
N8 8 Sione Lauaki
OF 7 Tanerau Latimer
BF 6 Liam Messam
RL 5 Kevin O'Neill
LL 4 Craig Clarke
TP 3 James McGougan
HK 2 Aled de Malmanche
LP 1 Sona Taumalolo
Substitutions:
HK 16 Hika Elliot
LP 17 Joe Savage
RL 18 Toby Lynn
LF 19 Serge Lilo
HB 20 David Bason
FF 21 Mike Delany
RW 22 Sosene AnesiYou could argue he did bloody well to even get them there. Not a shite squad but not the cattle Robertson's had to work with either. The 2009 Bulls were also on a different level to any of the sides Sharky's Crusaders have faced.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
I just think it could have been managed better, especially given Robinson called Foster his good friend earlier and the chair gave his "absolute backing and support" to both in the same sentence.
βI want to absolutely emphasise going forward that both Ian as head coach and Mark as chief executive have the board's absolute backing and support.βThink you're hearing ghosts in the attic.
no attic so it nust be your imaginung.
including any notion the NZR are good at optics
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
I just think it could have been managed better, especially given Robinson called Foster his good friend earlier and the chair gave his "absolute backing and support" to both in the same sentence.
βI want to absolutely emphasise going forward that both Ian as head coach and Mark as chief executive have the board's absolute backing and support.βThink you're hearing ghosts in the attic.
no attic so it nust be your imaginung.
including any notion the NZR are good at optics
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f1/9d/f9/f19df97352ab27d690822061edae5113.gif
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
I just think it could have been managed better, especially given Robinson called Foster his good friend earlier and the chair gave his "absolute backing and support" to both in the same sentence.
βI want to absolutely emphasise going forward that both Ian as head coach and Mark as chief executive have the board's absolute backing and support.βThink you're hearing ghosts in the attic.
no attic so it nust be your imaginung.
including any notion the NZR are good at optics
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@nostrildamus said in Foster:
I just think it could have been managed better, especially given Robinson called Foster his good friend earlier and the chair gave his "absolute backing and support" to both in the same sentence.
βI want to absolutely emphasise going forward that both Ian as head coach and Mark as chief executive have the board's absolute backing and support.βThink you're hearing ghosts in the attic.
no attic so it nust be your imaginung.
including any notion the NZR are good at optics
That's zero, zip, nada to do Foster and Robinson patting each other on the shoulder.
On the article, I agree. Terrible optics. They should have told the complainers to fuck right off for being sexist fluffybunnies. Why shouldn't men celebrate IWD?
-
One win and suddenly the "learnings" have been learned? You guys crack me up!
Foster has learned nothing. We will be back to players out of position, favourites never dropped, a backline relying on individual brilliance etc.
If he capable of more he would have learned it years -- decades -- ago.
If he cared about results he would have shown a lot more humility after his last couple of years with the Chiefs. And then his recent losses. But no, he thinks all is going sweet! He's utterly deluded.
And the results will remain lackluster as long as he remains anything but pure figurehead.
-
What I find incredible is that he got 8 years at the Chiefs. Is he a fΕ―cking hypnotist or something? Him and effing Mark Hammett.
-
@Machpants said in Foster:
@chchfanatic said in Foster:
@Crucial yes your answer is exactly right.
So not shafted, just not eventuated. That, at least, is good management. No use firing Foster if there is no one to take over. And if he didn't get the offer, just a sounding, then no foul. Obviously NZR and Board are a bunch of rugby hating buffoons, by deciding one good game (plus 2 good quarters) out of 7 is a good thing, but at least in this case it was good management.
Good management 2.0 would be to leave Razor in little doubt he is next can off the rank, win lose or draw post RWC23. It will be a minor miracle of we win, and not something to build a foundation for the next 4 years on
@Machpants said in Foster:
@chchfanatic said in Foster:
@Crucial yes your answer is exactly right.
So not shafted, just not eventuated. That, at least, is good management. No use firing Foster if there is no one to take over. And if he didn't get the offer, just a sounding, then no foul. Obviously NZR and Board are a bunch of rugby hating buffoons, by deciding one good game (plus 2 good quarters) out of 7 is a good thing, but at least in this case it was good management.
Good management 2.0 would be to leave Razor in little doubt he is next can off the rank, win lose or draw post RWC23. It will be a minor miracle of we win, and not something to build a foundation for the next 4 years on
I'm going to very politely suggest that if Foster wins RWC2023 from where he was a month ago and NZR says "goodbye", the meltdown on the Fern will make the RWC2007 Quarter Final thread look like an Eskimo's day out in a dry ice factory.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
Pretty Happy that Schmidt and Ryan will have a big influence going forward. At least they can see from the outside how shit it has been and make changes. The key is Foster listening and letting them make the necesarry changes.
Schmidt's involvement is Foster's idea. He's been trying to bring him on board for two years.
@Victor-Meldrew Because he understands his limitations or because he is a great eye for talent?
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
Pretty Happy that Schmidt and Ryan will have a big influence going forward. At least they can see from the outside how shit it has been and make changes. The key is Foster listening and letting them make the necesarry changes.
Schmidt's involvement is Foster's idea. He's been trying to bring him on board for two years.
@Victor-Meldrew Because he understands his limitations or because he is a great eye for talent?
Probably both and because Foster recognises the importance of team strength? The strong internal support he gets isn't an accident.
-
One win and suddenly the "learnings" have been learned? You guys crack me up!
Foster has learned nothing. We will be back to players out of position, favourites never dropped, a backline relying on individual brilliance etc.
If he capable of more he would have learned it years -- decades -- ago.
If he cared about results he would have shown a lot more humility after his last couple of years with the Chiefs. And then his recent losses. But no, he thinks all is going sweet! He's utterly deluded.
And the results will remain lackluster as long as he remains anything but pure figurehead.
@Chester-Draws said in Foster:
One win and suddenly the "learnings" have been learned? You guys crack me up!
Foster has learned nothing. We will be back to players out of position, favourites never dropped, a backline relying on individual brilliance etc.
If he capable of more he would have learned it years -- decades -- ago.
If he cared about results he would have shown a lot more humility after his last couple of years with the Chiefs. And then his recent losses. But no, he thinks all is going sweet! He's utterly deluded.
And the results will remain lackluster as long as he remains anything but pure figurehead.
-
One win and suddenly the "learnings" have been learned? You guys crack me up!
Foster has learned nothing. We will be back to players out of position, favourites never dropped, a backline relying on individual brilliance etc.
If he capable of more he would have learned it years -- decades -- ago.
If he cared about results he would have shown a lot more humility after his last couple of years with the Chiefs. And then his recent losses. But no, he thinks all is going sweet! He's utterly deluded.
And the results will remain lackluster as long as he remains anything but pure figurehead.
@Chester-Draws said in Foster:
One win and suddenly the "learnings" have been learned? You guys crack me up!
Who are you guys? Who has said the above?
Foster has learned nothing. We will be back to players out of position, favourites never dropped, a backline relying on individual brilliance etc.
Did he tell you this? Or are you just speculating?
If he capable of more he would have learned it years -- decades -- ago.
If he cared about results he would have shown a lot more humility after his last couple of years with the Chiefs. And then his recent losses. But no, he thinks all is going sweet! He's utterly deluded.
You think Foster doesn't care about the results & he think's all is going sweet? And then you call HIM deluded?
And the results will remain lackluster as long as he remains anything but pure figurehead.
Ae you suggesting it's ok for him to be head coach as long as he has nothing to do with the team?
I'm fucking grumpy today for a number of reasons and the shit on this thread isn't helping. If you've got something new to offer, then cool. But we are what, 3k posts into recycling the same crap over and over again with people inventing arguments / point of view to fight against.
If you've nothing new to add, fuck off to another thread.
-
As John Hart said today - One of Foster's main mistakes was sticking with Mooar and Plumtree even after the players raised concerns about them following the end of year tour. He strikes me as a conservative, stubborn and loyal guy that needs a bomb under him before he will change.
-
As John Hart said today - One of Foster's main mistakes was sticking with Mooar and Plumtree even after the players raised concerns about them following the end of year tour. He strikes me as a conservative, stubborn and loyal guy that needs a bomb under him before he will change.
As John Hart said today - One of Foster's main mistakes was sticking with Mooar and Plumtree even after the players raised concerns about them following the end of year tour. He strikes me as a conservative, stubborn and loyal guy that needs a bomb under him before he will change.
Perhaps making him feel comfortable up to the RWC isn't the best strategy then. Maybe Fozz needs an atmosphere of constant concern....
-
Or in summary.
Shit attracts flies.
Flowers attract bees.
Or if anyone actually remembers up to Rennie taking over team, you couldn't pick players from wherever you wanted. They had (or a real high percentage) had to come from your own franchise area. The year Rennie tool over it was open slather, hence the likes of Brodie, Aaron Cruden , Scott Waldren , Hika Reid etc coming in from outside area. I think it was about then that teams dropped the Waikato, Wellington etc from the beginning of franchise names? Not on anyway degenerating Rennie (who I like regardless of his results in Aus) or upping Foster etc, just a real convenient fact that seems to be slipped under carpet at times. Chiefs region weren't absolutely
-
Or in summary.
Shit attracts flies.
Flowers attract bees.
Or if anyone actually remembers up to Rennie taking over team, you couldn't pick players from wherever you wanted. They had (or a real high percentage) had to come from your own franchise area. The year Rennie tool over it was open slather, hence the likes of Brodie, Aaron Cruden , Scott Waldren , Hika Reid etc coming in from outside area. I think it was about then that teams dropped the Waikato, Wellington etc from the beginning of franchise names? Not on anyway degenerating Rennie (who I like regardless of his results in Aus) or upping Foster etc, just a real convenient fact that seems to be slipped under carpet at times. Chiefs region weren't absolutely
Or in summary.
Shit attracts flies.
Flowers attract bees.
Or if anyone actually remembers up to Rennie taking over team, you couldn't pick players from wherever you wanted. They had (or a real high percentage) had to come from your own franchise area. The year Rennie tool over it was open slather, hence the likes of Brodie, Aaron Cruden , Scott Waldren , Hika Reid etc coming in from outside area. I think it was about then that teams dropped the Waikato, Wellington etc from the beginning of franchise names? Not on anyway degenerating Rennie (who I like regardless of his results in Aus) or upping Foster etc, just a real convenient fact that seems to be slipped under carpet at times. Chiefs region weren't absolutely
I understand your point but I think the grumping at the time was more that even within the franchise boundaries the Foster years (for whatever reason) gave precedence to players signed for Waikato. The BOP Mafia in particular were very vocal about it.
Yes Rennie was able to tap into the resources that other franchises had ignored, particularly the Canes with HB but his did so with a plan and that was to select honest workers over flashy stars, give them an opportunity and set them to work. -
this thread says there are loads more posts since I last logged in, but when I scan over them, it doesnt look like any new ones....
-
this thread says there are loads more posts since I last logged in, but when I scan over them, it doesnt look like any new ones....
@taniwharugby said in Foster:
this thread says there are loads more posts since I last logged in, but when I scan over them, it doesnt look like any new ones....
and it's taken 3k posts for you to realise this?
-
@taniwharugby said in Foster:
this thread says there are loads more posts since I last logged in, but when I scan over them, it doesnt look like any new ones....
and it's taken 3k posts for you to realise this?
-
@Crucial says the man with 1k of those posts
-
@Chester-Draws said in Foster:
One win and suddenly the "learnings" have been learned? You guys crack me up!
Who are you guys? Who has said the above?
Foster has learned nothing. We will be back to players out of position, favourites never dropped, a backline relying on individual brilliance etc.
Did he tell you this? Or are you just speculating?
If he capable of more he would have learned it years -- decades -- ago.
If he cared about results he would have shown a lot more humility after his last couple of years with the Chiefs. And then his recent losses. But no, he thinks all is going sweet! He's utterly deluded.
You think Foster doesn't care about the results & he think's all is going sweet? And then you call HIM deluded?
And the results will remain lackluster as long as he remains anything but pure figurehead.
Ae you suggesting it's ok for him to be head coach as long as he has nothing to do with the team?
I'm fucking grumpy today for a number of reasons and the shit on this thread isn't helping. If you've got something new to offer, then cool. But we are what, 3k posts into recycling the same crap over and over again with people inventing arguments / point of view to fight against.
If you've nothing new to add, fuck off to another thread.
@MajorRage said in Foster:
Foster has learned nothing. We will be back to players out of position, favourites never dropped, a backline relying on individual brilliance etc.
Did he tell you this? Or are you just speculating?
You think after two decades, the one win will change who he is and how he works?
Foster has played players out of their natural position for three years now. He has always had locked in favourites. His game plans have always involved very little structure (the players said as much only a couple of weeks ago). There's no need to speculate. It is who he is.
Changes only occur when forced on him.
I suppose he cares about the results, but I also believe he thinks that the bad ones are not his fault. He certainly refuses to take any substantial blame for them. Losses seem to just wash off him.
He's head coach who is willing to take the applause after a good win, and use it to keep his job, but not happy to take the blame after a bad loss.
Foster's record includes multiple times where his teams have been truly dreadful. But he keeps turning up for the next year. He doesn't seem to link his results to his coaching.
