Foster, Robertson etc
-
This place lurches from one extreme to the other.
That was a good AB performance but let's not get carried away.
For one thing we always flog Aussie at Eden Park. For another, this team had yet to string together 2 good performances all year.
Let's just hold our horses and wait and see how we go on the NH tour.
2 outcomes are on the cards I reckon.
Either we have finally turned a corner and will have a good tour.
OR we have mixed results, look good one week and dreadful.the next.
-
This place lurches from one extreme to the other.
That was a good AB performance but let's not get carried away.
For one thing we always flog Aussie at Eden Park. For another, this team had yet to string together 2 good performances all year.
Let's just hold our horses and wait and see how we go on the NH tour.
2 outcomes are on the cards I reckon.
Either we have finally turned a corner and will have a good tour.
OR we have mixed results, look good one week and dreadful.the next.
This place lurches from one extreme to the other.
That was a good AB performance but let's not get carried away.
For one thing we always flog Aussie at Eden Park. For another, this team had yet to string together 2 good performances all year.
Let's just hold our horses and wait and see how we go on the NH tour.
2 outcomes are on the cards I reckon.
Either we have finally turned a corner and will have a good tour.
OR we have mixed results, look good one week and dreadful.the next.
Hopefully that performance is vs Scotland.
Come on the sweaty socks !
-
“It was quite loose and unorganized as nobody really knew their role. I look at the team now and it’s exactly what I'm seeing.”
I hate this, because I'm one of the early members of the Foster Must Go club. But FFS, the players clearly rate him. He's not a great coach, but he's no idiot, and obviously does some good things.
If I get a white knight award for Foster, I'm changing my login details and coming back as a hater. Y'all been warned.
How else does one explain All Blacks going from disorganized rabble to structured & cohesive unit within the timeframe of merely 2-3 weeks? Anyone who thinks the change isn't entirely attributed to Ryan & Schmidt must be kidding themselves. Meldrew appears to be one of them.
“It was quite loose and unorganized as nobody really knew their role. I look at the team now and it’s exactly what I'm seeing.”
I hate this, because I'm one of the early members of the Foster Must Go club. But FFS, the players clearly rate him. He's not a great coach, but he's no idiot, and obviously does some good things.
If I get a white knight award for Foster, I'm changing my login details and coming back as a hater. Y'all been warned.
How else does one explain All Blacks going from disorganized rabble to structured & cohesive unit within the timeframe of merely 2-3 weeks? Anyone who thinks the change isn't entirely attributed to Ryan & Schmidt must be kidding themselves. Meldrew appears to be one of them.
I explain it by denying it.
We aren't structured and cohesive. We had a good win, in amongst some dreadful performances. The history of this season suggests next game will be diabolical. Hope we have turned the corner, but remember we said that about SA II, and ARG II as well.
Lots of chances went begging that great AB teams do not miss out on.
-
This place lurches from one extreme to the other.
That was a good AB performance but let's not get carried away.
For one thing we always flog Aussie at Eden Park. For another, this team had yet to string together 2 good performances all year.
Let's just hold our horses and wait and see how we go on the NH tour.
2 outcomes are on the cards I reckon.
Either we have finally turned a corner and will have a good tour.
OR we have mixed results, look good one week and dreadful.the next.
@Damo I think it’s possible that the ABs show they have turned the corner but lose a test on the upcoming tour.
I don’t doubt we will see some inconsistent patches throughout the 80 minutes, but if they can reduce those periods and show that they know how to regroup and step up, that will be a plus for me.
-
@Damo I think it’s possible that the ABs show they have turned the corner but lose a test on the upcoming tour.
I don’t doubt we will see some inconsistent patches throughout the 80 minutes, but if they can reduce those periods and show that they know how to regroup and step up, that will be a plus for me.
@ACT-Crusader said in Foster:
@Damo I think it’s possible that the ABs show they have turned the corner but lose a test on the upcoming tour.
I don’t doubt we will see some inconsistent patches throughout the 80 minutes, but if they can reduce those periods and show that they know how to regroup and step up, that will be a plus for me.
Yes I didn't say that we have to win every test for it to be a good tour. A close loss to England wouldn't be a disgrace so long as we play well.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
Not really. Even the players admitted that the assistants Gary Gold and Dick Muir were ultimately responsible for the success of that era & said De Villiers was pretty useless as a coach.
Every different to Foster then when you consider the high praise he gets from players like Ritchie, Ardie and Sam Whitelock.
Tbf, Mark "never made the playoffs despite having absolute power" Hammett seemed to have plenty of love from the players he didn't send packing.
I've no doubt that perhaps one-on-one Foster has plenty of wisdom to impart. He was a decent player himself and rose through the coaching ranks very quickly. Clearly he has something of value. Unfortunately it's patently obvious that he's not a very good head coach. The evidence obviously being the Chiefs and ABs. If I can give him credit for something it's having at least been humble enough to accept the changes that clearly needed to be made. While they came very belatedly and allowed him to save his job, many would probably have gone the full bottom lip and had a tanty. Maybe he does that in private but I for one feel a hell of alot better with Schmidt and Ryan holding his hand. It's a pretty ridiculous situation but probably the best outcome before handing over to Razor for fresh start (hopefully
) after the RWC.The flip side to your argument is that maybe he is a good head coach. He has held this team together and found solutions. Even with his mistakes (eg holding on to assistants and some players) he hasn't lost the changing room and has helped guide things through adversity.
Yep, he has stumbled onto some solutions or had his hand forced but I don't buy that he is some kind of idiot at the helm of a ship navigated and sailed by the crew.
Definitely had his failings exposed but he has also been able to work past them.Maybe.
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
Not really. Even the players admitted that the assistants Gary Gold and Dick Muir were ultimately responsible for the success of that era & said De Villiers was pretty useless as a coach.
Every different to Foster then when you consider the high praise he gets from players like Ritchie, Ardie and Sam Whitelock.
Tbf, Mark "never made the playoffs despite having absolute power" Hammett seemed to have plenty of love from the players he didn't send packing.
I've no doubt that perhaps one-on-one Foster has plenty of wisdom to impart. He was a decent player himself and rose through the coaching ranks very quickly. Clearly he has something of value. Unfortunately it's patently obvious that he's not a very good head coach. The evidence obviously being the Chiefs and ABs. If I can give him credit for something it's having at least been humble enough to accept the changes that clearly needed to be made. While they came very belatedly and allowed him to save his job, many would probably have gone the full bottom lip and had a tanty. Maybe he does that in private but I for one feel a hell of alot better with Schmidt and Ryan holding his hand. It's a pretty ridiculous situation but probably the best outcome before handing over to Razor for fresh start (hopefully
) after the RWC.The flip side to your argument is that maybe he is a good head coach. He has held this team together and found solutions. Even with his mistakes (eg holding on to assistants and some players) he hasn't lost the changing room and has helped guide things through adversity.
Yep, he has stumbled onto some solutions or had his hand forced but I don't buy that he is some kind of idiot at the helm of a ship navigated and sailed by the crew.
Definitely had his failings exposed but he has also been able to work past them.Maybe.
I just want to know how you keep that suit of armour so damn white. You even manage to get the grass stains out of the knees. Impressive!
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Foster:
@Damo I think it’s possible that the ABs show they have turned the corner but lose a test on the upcoming tour.
I don’t doubt we will see some inconsistent patches throughout the 80 minutes, but if they can reduce those periods and show that they know how to regroup and step up, that will be a plus for me.
Yes I didn't say that we have to win every test for it to be a good tour. A close loss to England wouldn't be a disgrace so long as we play well.
@ACT-Crusader said in Foster:
@Damo I think it’s possible that the ABs show they have turned the corner but lose a test on the upcoming tour.
I don’t doubt we will see some inconsistent patches throughout the 80 minutes, but if they can reduce those periods and show that they know how to regroup and step up, that will be a plus for me.
Yes I didn't say that we have to win every test for it to be a good tour. A close loss to England wouldn't be a disgrace so long as we play well.
This
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Foster:
@Damo I think it’s possible that the ABs show they have turned the corner but lose a test on the upcoming tour.
I don’t doubt we will see some inconsistent patches throughout the 80 minutes, but if they can reduce those periods and show that they know how to regroup and step up, that will be a plus for me.
Yes I didn't say that we have to win every test for it to be a good tour. A close loss to England wouldn't be a disgrace so long as we play well.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
Not really. Even the players admitted that the assistants Gary Gold and Dick Muir were ultimately responsible for the success of that era & said De Villiers was pretty useless as a coach.
Every different to Foster then when you consider the high praise he gets from players like Ritchie, Ardie and Sam Whitelock.
Tbf, Mark "never made the playoffs despite having absolute power" Hammett seemed to have plenty of love from the players he didn't send packing.
I've no doubt that perhaps one-on-one Foster has plenty of wisdom to impart. He was a decent player himself and rose through the coaching ranks very quickly. Clearly he has something of value. Unfortunately it's patently obvious that he's not a very good head coach. The evidence obviously being the Chiefs and ABs. If I can give him credit for something it's having at least been humble enough to accept the changes that clearly needed to be made. While they came very belatedly and allowed him to save his job, many would probably have gone the full bottom lip and had a tanty. Maybe he does that in private but I for one feel a hell of alot better with Schmidt and Ryan holding his hand. It's a pretty ridiculous situation but probably the best outcome before handing over to Razor for fresh start (hopefully
) after the RWC.The flip side to your argument is that maybe he is a good head coach. He has held this team together and found solutions. Even with his mistakes (eg holding on to assistants and some players) he hasn't lost the changing room and has helped guide things through adversity.
Yep, he has stumbled onto some solutions or had his hand forced but I don't buy that he is some kind of idiot at the helm of a ship navigated and sailed by the crew.
Definitely had his failings exposed but he has also been able to work past them.Maybe.
I just want to know how you keep that suit of armour so damn white. You even manage to get the grass stains out of the knees. Impressive!
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
Not really. Even the players admitted that the assistants Gary Gold and Dick Muir were ultimately responsible for the success of that era & said De Villiers was pretty useless as a coach.
Every different to Foster then when you consider the high praise he gets from players like Ritchie, Ardie and Sam Whitelock.
Tbf, Mark "never made the playoffs despite having absolute power" Hammett seemed to have plenty of love from the players he didn't send packing.
I've no doubt that perhaps one-on-one Foster has plenty of wisdom to impart. He was a decent player himself and rose through the coaching ranks very quickly. Clearly he has something of value. Unfortunately it's patently obvious that he's not a very good head coach. The evidence obviously being the Chiefs and ABs. If I can give him credit for something it's having at least been humble enough to accept the changes that clearly needed to be made. While they came very belatedly and allowed him to save his job, many would probably have gone the full bottom lip and had a tanty. Maybe he does that in private but I for one feel a hell of alot better with Schmidt and Ryan holding his hand. It's a pretty ridiculous situation but probably the best outcome before handing over to Razor for fresh start (hopefully
) after the RWC.The flip side to your argument is that maybe he is a good head coach. He has held this team together and found solutions. Even with his mistakes (eg holding on to assistants and some players) he hasn't lost the changing room and has helped guide things through adversity.
Yep, he has stumbled onto some solutions or had his hand forced but I don't buy that he is some kind of idiot at the helm of a ship navigated and sailed by the crew.
Definitely had his failings exposed but he has also been able to work past them.Maybe.
I just want to know how you keep that suit of armour so damn white. You even manage to get the grass stains out of the knees. Impressive!
You didn’t spot the double use of “maybe”. Used for a reason.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Foster:
@Damo I think it’s possible that the ABs show they have turned the corner but lose a test on the upcoming tour.
I don’t doubt we will see some inconsistent patches throughout the 80 minutes, but if they can reduce those periods and show that they know how to regroup and step up, that will be a plus for me.
Yes I didn't say that we have to win every test for it to be a good tour. A close loss to England wouldn't be a disgrace so long as we play well.
@ACT-Crusader said in Foster:
@Damo I think it’s possible that the ABs show they have turned the corner but lose a test on the upcoming tour.
I don’t doubt we will see some inconsistent patches throughout the 80 minutes, but if they can reduce those periods and show that they know how to regroup and step up, that will be a plus for me.
Yes I didn't say that we have to win every test for it to be a good tour. A close loss to England wouldn't be a disgrace so long as we play well.
[jinx]I’m less worried about England on this tour, they are capable of playing some decent footy and lifting for the ABs, but I have a feeling Ryan will have our pack humming for that one. I’m more concerned about some random reffing against either Wales or Scotland and we play poorly and have Argentina 1 again [\alert]
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
Not really. Even the players admitted that the assistants Gary Gold and Dick Muir were ultimately responsible for the success of that era & said De Villiers was pretty useless as a coach.
Every different to Foster then when you consider the high praise he gets from players like Ritchie, Ardie and Sam Whitelock.
Tbf, Mark "never made the playoffs despite having absolute power" Hammett seemed to have plenty of love from the players he didn't send packing.
I've no doubt that perhaps one-on-one Foster has plenty of wisdom to impart. He was a decent player himself and rose through the coaching ranks very quickly. Clearly he has something of value. Unfortunately it's patently obvious that he's not a very good head coach. The evidence obviously being the Chiefs and ABs. If I can give him credit for something it's having at least been humble enough to accept the changes that clearly needed to be made. While they came very belatedly and allowed him to save his job, many would probably have gone the full bottom lip and had a tanty. Maybe he does that in private but I for one feel a hell of alot better with Schmidt and Ryan holding his hand. It's a pretty ridiculous situation but probably the best outcome before handing over to Razor for fresh start (hopefully
) after the RWC.@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
Not really. Even the players admitted that the assistants Gary Gold and Dick Muir were ultimately responsible for the success of that era & said De Villiers was pretty useless as a coach.
Every different to Foster then when you consider the high praise he gets from players like Ritchie, Ardie and Sam Whitelock.
Tbf, Mark "never made the playoffs despite having absolute power" Hammett seemed to have plenty of love from the players he didn't send packing.
I've no doubt that perhaps one-on-one Foster has plenty of wisdom to impart. He was a decent player himself and rose through the coaching ranks very quickly. Clearly he has something of value. Unfortunately it's patently obvious that he's not a very good head coach. The evidence obviously being the Chiefs and ABs. If I can give him credit for something it's having at least been humble enough to accept the changes that clearly needed to be made. While they came very belatedly and allowed him to save his job, many would probably have gone the full bottom lip and had a tanty. Maybe he does that in private but I for one feel a hell of alot better with Schmidt and Ryan holding his hand. It's a pretty ridiculous situation but probably the best outcome before handing over to Razor for fresh start (hopefully
) after the RWC.May be. But it's got bugger-all to do with the ludicrous idea that when the AB's lose or the forwards play like shit, Foster, as Head Coach, should take the blame, but when they win, it's all down to the assistants and nothing to do with the Head Coach.
-
This place lurches from one extreme to the other.
That was a good AB performance but let's not get carried away.
For one thing we always flog Aussie at Eden Park. For another, this team had yet to string together 2 good performances all year.
Let's just hold our horses and wait and see how we go on the NH tour.
2 outcomes are on the cards I reckon.
Either we have finally turned a corner and will have a good tour.
OR we have mixed results, look good one week and dreadful.the next.
@Damo That has kind of been a recuring theme of some of our performance over the last couple of years, even before the last World Cup we were like that. The only real shift this year is that thanks to Jason Ryan our forwards are looking a whole lot better.
-
@kiwiinmelb said in Foster:
@Rancid-Schnitzel apparently razor met with mark Robinson yesterday at nzru headquarters on a public holiday. And walked out together, Nobody knows what is was about . Hopefully his coaching contract post World Cup .
The funny thing is senz share the same building and same floor and they were giving live commentary as it was happening.
Not ideal for private meetings.A meeting to see if Razor will take the All Black XV
Coaches job.@kiwiinmelb said in Foster:
@Rancid-Schnitzel apparently razor met with mark Robinson yesterday at nzru headquarters on a public holiday. And walked out together, Nobody knows what is was about . Hopefully his coaching contract post World Cup .
The funny thing is senz share the same building and same floor and they were giving live commentary as it was happening.
Not ideal for private meetings.A meeting to see if Razor will take the All Black XV
Coaches job.Good opportunity for him to get some much-needed international experience at senior level.
-
“It was quite loose and unorganized as nobody really knew their role. I look at the team now and it’s exactly what I'm seeing.”
I hate this, because I'm one of the early members of the Foster Must Go club. But FFS, the players clearly rate him. He's not a great coach, but he's no idiot, and obviously does some good things.
If I get a white knight award for Foster, I'm changing my login details and coming back as a hater. Y'all been warned.
How else does one explain All Blacks going from disorganized rabble to structured & cohesive unit within the timeframe of merely 2-3 weeks? Anyone who thinks the change isn't entirely attributed to Ryan & Schmidt must be kidding themselves. Meldrew appears to be one of them.
Meldrew appears to be one of them.
No mate, I try not to see things in black and white, look at the facts, analyse the best I can, try to be consistent and come up with hopefully logical conclusions.
Unlike those who blame the Head Coach for poor AB performances but when things go well say it's nothing to do with the Head Coach. Or argue we need a new Head Coach but, when we win the RC, then argue a Head Coach has little impact on winning or losing.
-
This place lurches from one extreme to the other.
That was a good AB performance but let's not get carried away.
For one thing we always flog Aussie at Eden Park. For another, this team had yet to string together 2 good performances all year.
Let's just hold our horses and wait and see how we go on the NH tour.
2 outcomes are on the cards I reckon.
Either we have finally turned a corner and will have a good tour.
OR we have mixed results, look good one week and dreadful.the next.
This place lurches from one extreme to the other.
That was a good AB performance but let's not get carried away.
For one thing we always flog Aussie at Eden Park. For another, this team had yet to string together 2 good performances all year.
Let's just hold our horses and wait and see how we go on the NH tour.
2 outcomes are on the cards I reckon.
Either we have finally turned a corner and will have a good tour.
OR we have mixed results, look good one week and dreadful.the next.
There's improvement but still too much inconsistency and dumb stuff like giving away penalties when on attack.
On the plus side (and I think it's a big plus) the on-field attitude and leadership has improved beyond measure - the headless chicken, "what the fuck do we do now" stuff seems to have largely vanished.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@DaGrubster said in Foster:
Even great AB sides put in poor performances. Most of the time they would still win though!
5 wins out of the last 11 is not too hot in my book.
It's the direction that's important and what we've seen in the last 4-5 games it's a team which has completely transformed itself from the rabble that was Ireland 2 & 3.
Long way to go, but the omens are way, way better than they were a few months back.
Changing coaching seems to have worked then,I wonder how better we would have been if Foster had gone as well,The assistants seem to be turning it around not the HC.
I have a slightly different view.
Foster's biggest failing hasn't been his coaching ability it has been his loyalty/determination to fix underperformance by giving more chances than he should. That's been at player and coach level. I guess that's his nature.
When his hand is forced (even Sami T coming into the squad last year) he does a pretty good job of making things work in his area.
All the praise toward the backs from last night is being heaped on the players but it was Foster that took what he saw last week and gave them a totally different plan than we have seen recently to make the most of their talents.
He gets there in the end. Just wish that the journey didn't have so many wrong turns and dead ends.Was it Foster who did that or Schmidt with the backs and Ryan with the forwards.
Foster has done jack all. Schmidt with the backs and Ryan with the forwards.
Fact or opinion?
Facts bro. The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better. And let's not get started on the pathetic replacement strategy run by Foster.
You don't seem to understand the words "facts" nor "opinion".
Thank you for the Englush lesson.
But you need to get off the Fizz fanboy train as you lack brutal honesty. Before Schmidt and Ryan were brought in the team had no strategy, we had a clueless bench strategy and we were plummeting down the rankings.
Maybe in your world where everyone gets a prize and that's ok. But this is not the participation award or who try's the hardest. You tell me the stats before Schmidt.and Ryan were brought on board or is maths not your strong suit?
You do your own analysis. I'll leave it right there English Teacher.Kinda curious as to why you think I'm on the "Fizz fanboy train", or support ANY of what you're arguing against.
I was just semi-jokingly pointing out a nonsensical post.
And - thanks - you've gone full-blown lunatic, and doubled down. -
@Kruse your reply tells me you embrace mediocrity.
embrace it? I am constantly striving for it!
