Foster, Robertson etc
-
@ploughboy said in Foster, Robertson etc:
lack of experence coaching internationally
if this is the criteria to be selected as an international coach,How do you get selected as one if you need it to be selected.
Answer you don't, there has been plenty of successful International coaches who have taken jobs and had success with no International experience.
And plenty who have had international experience who have been shit one pretty close to home.
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
if this is the criteria to be selected as an international coach,How do you get selected as one if you need it to be selected.
Probably why Robertson was offered an Assistant role.
-
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
if this is the criteria to be selected as an international coach,How do you get selected as one if you need it to be selected.
Probably why Robertson was offered an Assistant role.
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
if this is the criteria to be selected as an international coach,How do you get selected as one if you need it to be selected.
Probably why Robertson was offered an Assistant role.
I don’t believe he was, Where did that come from.
I have never heard that.
Adding to that I can 100% inform you he was never offered an Assistant role , You have just made that BS up. -
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
if this is the criteria to be selected as an international coach,How do you get selected as one if you need it to be selected.
Probably why Robertson was offered an Assistant role.
I don’t believe he was, Where did that come from.
I have never heard that.
Adding to that I can 100% inform you he was never offered an Assistant role , You have just made that BS up.@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
if this is the criteria to be selected as an international coach,How do you get selected as one if you need it to be selected.
Probably why Robertson was offered an Assistant role.
I don’t believe he was, Where did that come from.
I have never heard that.
Adding to that I can 100% inform you he was never offered an Assistant role , You have just made that BS up.Really? I thought I read here he was, but turned it down. Happy to stand corrected though.
But back to the original question, it's clear NZR have a dogma about international experience but he's made it equally clear it was Head Honcho or nothing and NZR seem to have an issue with that attitude. Perhaps he should have pushed for a Assistant role - that way he would have shown himself to be a team player (it's been reported Joe Schmidt has issues working with him) and meet the International experience criteria.
For whatever reason, he didn't, so we are where we are.
-
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
if this is the criteria to be selected as an international coach,How do you get selected as one if you need it to be selected.
Probably why Robertson was offered an Assistant role.
I don’t believe he was, Where did that come from.
I have never heard that.
Adding to that I can 100% inform you he was never offered an Assistant role , You have just made that BS up.Really? I thought I read here he was, but turned it down. Happy to stand corrected though.
But back to the original question, it's clear NZR have a dogma about international experience but he's made it equally clear it was Head Honcho or nothing and NZR seem to have an issue with that attitude. Perhaps he should have pushed for a Assistant role - that way he would have shown himself to be a team player (it's been reported Joe Schmidt has issues working with him) and meet the International experience criteria.
For whatever reason, he didn't, so we are where we are.
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
it's clear NZR have a dogma
Do they? Or is that just the perception? I wouldn't be confident to state they've said that's an official rule.
-
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
if this is the criteria to be selected as an international coach,How do you get selected as one if you need it to be selected.
Probably why Robertson was offered an Assistant role.
I don’t believe he was, Where did that come from.
I have never heard that.
Adding to that I can 100% inform you he was never offered an Assistant role , You have just made that BS up.Really? I thought I read here he was, but turned it down. Happy to stand corrected though.
But back to the original question, it's clear NZR have a dogma about international experience but he's made it equally clear it was Head Honcho or nothing and NZR seem to have an issue with that attitude. Perhaps he should have pushed for a Assistant role - that way he would have shown himself to be a team player (it's been reported Joe Schmidt has issues working with him) and meet the International experience criteria.
For whatever reason, he didn't, so we are where we are.
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
(it's been reported Joe Schmidt has issues working with him)
I don't think it was Robertson per se, but that he felt a loyalty to Foster.
Or have you read something else?
-
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
if this is the criteria to be selected as an international coach,How do you get selected as one if you need it to be selected.
Probably why Robertson was offered an Assistant role.
I don’t believe he was, Where did that come from.
I have never heard that.
Adding to that I can 100% inform you he was never offered an Assistant role , You have just made that BS up.Really? I thought I read here he was, but turned it down. Happy to stand corrected though.
But back to the original question, it's clear NZR have a dogma about international experience but he's made it equally clear it was Head Honcho or nothing and NZR seem to have an issue with that attitude. Perhaps he should have pushed for a Assistant role - that way he would have shown himself to be a team player (it's been reported Joe Schmidt has issues working with him) and meet the International experience criteria.
For whatever reason, he didn't, so we are where we are.
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
if this is the criteria to be selected as an international coach,How do you get selected as one if you need it to be selected.
Probably why Robertson was offered an Assistant role.
I don’t believe he was, Where did that come from.
I have never heard that.
Adding to that I can 100% inform you he was never offered an Assistant role , You have just made that BS up.Really? I thought I read here he was, but turned it down. Happy to stand corrected though.
But back to the original question, it's clear NZR have a dogma about international experience but he's made it equally clear it was Head Honcho or nothing and NZR seem to have an issue with that attitude. Perhaps he should have pushed for a Assistant role - that way he would have shown himself to be a team player (it's been reported Joe Schmidt has issues working with him) and meet the International experience criteria.
For whatever reason, he didn't, so we are where we are.
Yeah 100% he was never offered an assistants Role.
Foster and his preferred coaches were a package.
Razor was not offered anything, NZR didn’t think putting the 2 men together after both applying for the same job was a good way to go forward. -
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
(it's been reported Joe Schmidt has issues working with him)
I don't think it was Robertson per se, but that he felt a loyalty to Foster.
Or have you read something else?
@Frank said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
(it's been reported Joe Schmidt has issues working with him)
I don't think it was Robertson per se, but that he felt a loyalty to Foster.
Or have you read something else?
Exactly is was the loyalty to Foster.Which is fair enough at the time.
Razor and Joe get on well. -
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
if this is the criteria to be selected as an international coach,How do you get selected as one if you need it to be selected.
Probably why Robertson was offered an Assistant role.
I don’t believe he was, Where did that come from.
I have never heard that.
Adding to that I can 100% inform you he was never offered an Assistant role , You have just made that BS up.Really? I thought I read here he was, but turned it down. Happy to stand corrected though.
But back to the original question, it's clear NZR have a dogma about international experience but he's made it equally clear it was Head Honcho or nothing and NZR seem to have an issue with that attitude. Perhaps he should have pushed for a Assistant role - that way he would have shown himself to be a team player (it's been reported Joe Schmidt has issues working with him) and meet the International experience criteria.
For whatever reason, he didn't, so we are where we are.
Yeah 100% he was never offered an assistants Role.
Foster and his preferred coaches were a package.
Razor was not offered anything, NZR didn’t think putting the 2 men together after both applying for the same job was a good way to go forward.@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Foster and his preferred coaches were a package.
As mentioned, I don't think NZR had a problem with packages. But probably did with Robertson's "here's my package, take it or leave it" approach - particularly when his international experience was both minimal and patchy.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
it's clear NZR have a dogma
Do they? Or is that just the perception? I wouldn't be confident to state they've said that's an official rule.
@Bones said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
it's clear NZR have a dogma
Do they? Or is that just the perception? I wouldn't be confident to state they've said that's an official rule.
Not a written rule, but yeah, I think they do.
Which is fine as long as they have some sort of plan in place to develop good coaches. Which they don't appear to have.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
(it's been reported Joe Schmidt has issues working with him)
I don't think it was Robertson per se, but that he felt a loyalty to Foster.
Or have you read something else?
@Frank said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
(it's been reported Joe Schmidt has issues working with him)
I don't think it was Robertson per se, but that he felt a loyalty to Foster.
Or have you read something else?
Regardless of the reason, Joe wouldn't have wanted to work with him.
Whether Schmidt would have said the same If Foster had been replaced by someone else other than Robertson, we'll never know.
-
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
if this is the criteria to be selected as an international coach,How do you get selected as one if you need it to be selected.
Probably why Robertson was offered an Assistant role.
I don’t believe he was, Where did that come from.
I have never heard that.
Adding to that I can 100% inform you he was never offered an Assistant role , You have just made that BS up.Really? I thought I read here he was, but turned it down. Happy to stand corrected though.
But back to the original question, it's clear NZR have a dogma about international experience but he's made it equally clear it was Head Honcho or nothing and NZR seem to have an issue with that attitude. Perhaps he should have pushed for a Assistant role - that way he would have shown himself to be a team player (it's been reported Joe Schmidt has issues working with him) and meet the International experience criteria.
For whatever reason, he didn't, so we are where we are.
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
if this is the criteria to be selected as an international coach,How do you get selected as one if you need it to be selected.
Probably why Robertson was offered an Assistant role.
I don’t believe he was, Where did that come from.
I have never heard that.
Adding to that I can 100% inform you he was never offered an Assistant role , You have just made that BS up.Really? I thought I read here he was, but turned it down. Happy to stand corrected though.
Yeah I was unaware of that and read it here somewhere as well , it was news to me, not that I probably follow it as closely as some
-
@Dan54 Where does the buck stop!
AB coach is an absolutely critical decision for NZR - if you're telling me it's not in Robinson's purview, I'm saying bollocks. Was it him or Lendrum who was in South Africa?
Razor has hung around for 4 years waiting for another shot, so the idea he doesn't now want the job - bollocks to that as well.
He's completed a four year job interview that we've all been privy to - just lock him in!!!
@Chris-B said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Dan54 Where does the buck stop!
AB coach is an absolutely critical decision for NZR - if you're telling me it's not in Robinson's purview, I'm saying bollocks. Was it him or Lendrum who was in South Africa?
Razor has hung around for 4 years waiting for another shot, so the idea he doesn't now want the job - bollocks to that as well.
He's completed a four year job interview that we've all been privy to - just lock him in!!!
Yep I'm telling you it not up to Robinson who coaches ABs. The buck stops with NZR board who tell Robison what to do. What's it got to do with who in SA, he was there in discussions with SARU,so why would Lendrum be there? Genuine question too. He wasn't with with ABs, obviously timed to go with tests etc. He (same as Steve Tew before, and Marinos in Aussie etc) have almost nothing to do with team.. Generally CEOs of rugby boards anywhere make very few decisions, of importance, and that goes from provincial unions right through. They are generally the ones who act on decisions made by elected board. As when Robinson and one ot two others had made suggestions how to fix Super rugby impass with Aussie , got back to NZR board squashed it.
In my experience in clubs and provincial rugby boards, the CEO has never appointed the coach, and generally don't even vote on board decisions, they act on what the board says.generally. -
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Foster and his preferred coaches were a package.
As mentioned, I don't think NZR had a problem with packages. But probably did with Robertson's "here's my package, take it or leave it" approach - particularly when his international experience was both minimal and patchy.
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Foster and his preferred coaches were a package.
As mentioned, I don't think NZR had a problem with packages. But probably did with Robertson's "here's my package, take it or leave it" approach - particularly when his international experience was both minimal and patchy.
This sounds like one of the other assumptions that you've posted in this thread without it being based on evidence. I'd love to see a source where you base this assumption on.
-
@Frank said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
(it's been reported Joe Schmidt has issues working with him)
I don't think it was Robertson per se, but that he felt a loyalty to Foster.
Or have you read something else?
Regardless of the reason, Joe wouldn't have wanted to work with him.
Whether Schmidt would have said the same If Foster had been replaced by someone else other than Robertson, we'll never know.
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Frank said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
(it's been reported Joe Schmidt has issues working with him)
I don't think it was Robertson per se, but that he felt a loyalty to Foster.
Or have you read something else?
Regardless of the reason, Joe wouldn't have wanted to work with him.
Whether Schmidt would have said the same If Foster had been replaced by someone else other than Robertson, we'll never know.
Source? Another assumption?
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Foster and his preferred coaches were a package.
As mentioned, I don't think NZR had a problem with packages. But probably did with Robertson's "here's my package, take it or leave it" approach - particularly when his international experience was both minimal and patchy.
This sounds like one of the other assumptions that you've posted in this thread without it being based on evidence. I'd love to see a source where you base this assumption on.
@Stargazer said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
Foster and his preferred coaches were a package.
As mentioned, I don't think NZR had a problem with packages. But probably did with Robertson's "here's my package, take it or leave it" approach - particularly when his international experience was both minimal and patchy.
This sounds like one of the other assumptions that you've posted in this thread without it being based on evidence. I'd love to see a source where you base this assumption on.
"Crusaders coach Scott Robertson has revealed he's only interested in being the next All Blacks head coach. Robertson won't consider being an assistant in the process to appoint Steve Hansen's successor."
From the man's own mouth. Sounds like a take it or leave it approach to me.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Frank said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
(it's been reported Joe Schmidt has issues working with him)
I don't think it was Robertson per se, but that he felt a loyalty to Foster.
Or have you read something else?
Regardless of the reason, Joe wouldn't have wanted to work with him.
Whether Schmidt would have said the same If Foster had been replaced by someone else other than Robertson, we'll never know.
Source? Another assumption?
@Stargazer said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Frank said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
(it's been reported Joe Schmidt has issues working with him)
I don't think it was Robertson per se, but that he felt a loyalty to Foster.
Or have you read something else?
Regardless of the reason, Joe wouldn't have wanted to work with him.
Whether Schmidt would have said the same If Foster had been replaced by someone else other than Robertson, we'll never know.
Source? Another assumption?
"Schmidt, who had not travelled to South Africa, was encouraged by NZR to meet Robertson to determine whether they could work together."
"The first and most important development was that Schmidt ruled out working with Robertson after the two had met. Schmidt, it is believed, explained that he felt a loyalty to Foster and discomfort at being asked to meet with another potential head coach."
And, as I said, it's moot whether Schmidt would have said the same If Foster had been replaced by someone else other than Robertson - but we'll never know
-
@Stargazer said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Frank said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
(it's been reported Joe Schmidt has issues working with him)
I don't think it was Robertson per se, but that he felt a loyalty to Foster.
Or have you read something else?
Regardless of the reason, Joe wouldn't have wanted to work with him.
Whether Schmidt would have said the same If Foster had been replaced by someone else other than Robertson, we'll never know.
Source? Another assumption?
"Schmidt, who had not travelled to South Africa, was encouraged by NZR to meet Robertson to determine whether they could work together."
"The first and most important development was that Schmidt ruled out working with Robertson after the two had met. Schmidt, it is believed, explained that he felt a loyalty to Foster and discomfort at being asked to meet with another potential head coach."
And, as I said, it's moot whether Schmidt would have said the same If Foster had been replaced by someone else other than Robertson - but we'll never know
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Stargazer said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Frank said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
(it's been reported Joe Schmidt has issues working with him)
I don't think it was Robertson per se, but that he felt a loyalty to Foster.
Or have you read something else?
Regardless of the reason, Joe wouldn't have wanted to work with him.
Whether Schmidt would have said the same If Foster had been replaced by someone else other than Robertson, we'll never know.
Source? Another assumption?
"Schmidt, who had not travelled to South Africa, was encouraged by NZR to meet Robertson to determine whether they could work together."
"The first and most important development was that Schmidt ruled out working with Robertson after the two had met. Schmidt, it is believed, explained that he felt a loyalty to Foster and discomfort at being asked to meet with another potential head coach."
And, as I said, it's moot whether Schmidt would have said the same If Foster had been replaced by someone else other than Robertson - but we'll never know
That is another assumption this time by the media
Probably based on a rumour not fact .
It is believed hardly makes it true. -
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Stargazer said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Frank said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
(it's been reported Joe Schmidt has issues working with him)
I don't think it was Robertson per se, but that he felt a loyalty to Foster.
Or have you read something else?
Regardless of the reason, Joe wouldn't have wanted to work with him.
Whether Schmidt would have said the same If Foster had been replaced by someone else other than Robertson, we'll never know.
Source? Another assumption?
"Schmidt, who had not travelled to South Africa, was encouraged by NZR to meet Robertson to determine whether they could work together."
"The first and most important development was that Schmidt ruled out working with Robertson after the two had met. Schmidt, it is believed, explained that he felt a loyalty to Foster and discomfort at being asked to meet with another potential head coach."
And, as I said, it's moot whether Schmidt would have said the same If Foster had been replaced by someone else other than Robertson - but we'll never know
That is another assumption this time by the media
Probably based on a rumour not fact .
It is believed hardly makes it true.@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
That is another assumption this time by the media
Probably based on a rumour not fact .
It is believed hardly makes it true.
Probably based on a rumour not fact .You can say that about anything in any debate on Robertson and Foster and NZR's decisions, though, can't you? The primary sources certainly aren't going to be available so that's the best we have.
Probably based on a rumour not fact
Is that an assumption? :smiling_face_with_sunglasses:
-
@Chris-B said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Dan54 Where does the buck stop!
AB coach is an absolutely critical decision for NZR - if you're telling me it's not in Robinson's purview, I'm saying bollocks. Was it him or Lendrum who was in South Africa?
Razor has hung around for 4 years waiting for another shot, so the idea he doesn't now want the job - bollocks to that as well.
He's completed a four year job interview that we've all been privy to - just lock him in!!!
Yep I'm telling you it not up to Robinson who coaches ABs. The buck stops with NZR board who tell Robison what to do. What's it got to do with who in SA, he was there in discussions with SARU,so why would Lendrum be there? Genuine question too. He wasn't with with ABs, obviously timed to go with tests etc. He (same as Steve Tew before, and Marinos in Aussie etc) have almost nothing to do with team.. Generally CEOs of rugby boards anywhere make very few decisions, of importance, and that goes from provincial unions right through. They are generally the ones who act on decisions made by elected board. As when Robinson and one ot two others had made suggestions how to fix Super rugby impass with Aussie , got back to NZR board squashed it.
In my experience in clubs and provincial rugby boards, the CEO has never appointed the coach, and generally don't even vote on board decisions, they act on what the board says.generally.@Dan54 Yes - the board signs off on everything. Then they go back to their day jobs and Robinson oversees the day-to-day implementation.
But, the CEO also makes recommendations to the board. He will recommend the process for appointing the next coach, he will oversee Lendrum's search (he'll almost certainly sit on whatever interview panel they come up with).
He and the chair of the Board will front the media.
His fingerprints will be on everything.
You can shoot the board into the sun alongside him, but if it all goes wrong he's the first guy on the chopping block.
-
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
That is another assumption this time by the media
Probably based on a rumour not fact .
It is believed hardly makes it true.
Probably based on a rumour not fact .You can say that about anything in any debate on Robertson and Foster and NZR's decisions, though, can't you? The primary sources certainly aren't going to be available so that's the best we have.
Probably based on a rumour not fact
Is that an assumption? :smiling_face_with_sunglasses:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:
@Chris said in Foster, Robertson etc:
That is another assumption this time by the media
Probably based on a rumour not fact .
It is believed hardly makes it true.
Probably based on a rumour not fact .You can say that about anything in any debate on Robertson and Foster and NZR's decisions, though, can't you? The primary sources certainly aren't going to be available so that's the best we have.
Probably based on a rumour not fact
Is that an assumption? :smiling_face_with_sunglasses:
Of course
