Foster, Robertson etc
-
Probably a lot of timing involved with looking good as a coach . Not talking about any coach in particular, just generalising .
But moving into the right job at the right time taking over the right group of players and vica versa can make or break you .
@kiwiinmelb said in Foster:
Probably a lot of timing involved with looking good as a coach . Not talking about any coach in particular, just generalising .
But moving into the right job at the right time taking over the right group of players and vica versa can make or break you .
A pretty important consideration and as has been alluded to, take SCW. Known as the Bus “cos he weren’t no coach”, but he had some great cattle.
In re NZ many have compared Henry’s and Hansen’s reigns to Foster without much consideration given to the number of all time greats they had at their disposal - and in their primes. Not to denigrate H&H’s achievements or to make excuses for Foster, but that issue does have a significant impact.
-
@kiwiinmelb said in Foster:
Probably a lot of timing involved with looking good as a coach . Not talking about any coach in particular, just generalising .
But moving into the right job at the right time taking over the right group of players and vica versa can make or break you .
A pretty important consideration and as has been alluded to, take SCW. Known as the Bus “cos he weren’t no coach”, but he had some great cattle.
In re NZ many have compared Henry’s and Hansen’s reigns to Foster without much consideration given to the number of all time greats they had at their disposal - and in their primes. Not to denigrate H&H’s achievements or to make excuses for Foster, but that issue does have a significant impact.
@Catogrande said in Foster:
@kiwiinmelb said in Foster:
Probably a lot of timing involved with looking good as a coach . Not talking about any coach in particular, just generalising .
But moving into the right job at the right time taking over the right group of players and vica versa can make or break you .
A pretty important consideration and as has been alluded to, take SCW. Known as the Bus “cos he weren’t no coach”, but he had some great cattle.
In re NZ many have compared Henry’s and Hansen’s reigns to Foster without much consideration given to the number of all time greats they had at their disposal - and in their primes. Not to denigrate H&H’s achievements or to make excuses for Foster, but that issue does have a significant impact.
There's a chicken and egg though - really good coaches lift players, make them better and really have an effect on the team. Dane Coles is a great example; he got turned from a hothead loose rake to a world class hooker with pace and swerve like a back, and niggle like Fitzpatrick.
-
@Catogrande said in Foster:
@kiwiinmelb said in Foster:
Probably a lot of timing involved with looking good as a coach . Not talking about any coach in particular, just generalising .
But moving into the right job at the right time taking over the right group of players and vica versa can make or break you .
A pretty important consideration and as has been alluded to, take SCW. Known as the Bus “cos he weren’t no coach”, but he had some great cattle.
In re NZ many have compared Henry’s and Hansen’s reigns to Foster without much consideration given to the number of all time greats they had at their disposal - and in their primes. Not to denigrate H&H’s achievements or to make excuses for Foster, but that issue does have a significant impact.
There's a chicken and egg though - really good coaches lift players, make them better and really have an effect on the team. Dane Coles is a great example; he got turned from a hothead loose rake to a world class hooker with pace and swerve like a back, and niggle like Fitzpatrick.
@Catogrande said in Foster:
@kiwiinmelb said in Foster:
Probably a lot of timing involved with looking good as a coach . Not talking about any coach in particular, just generalising .
But moving into the right job at the right time taking over the right group of players and vica versa can make or break you .
A pretty important consideration and as has been alluded to, take SCW. Known as the Bus “cos he weren’t no coach”, but he had some great cattle.
In re NZ many have compared Henry’s and Hansen’s reigns to Foster without much consideration given to the number of all time greats they had at their disposal - and in their primes. Not to denigrate H&H’s achievements or to make excuses for Foster, but that issue does have a significant impact.
There's a chicken and egg though - really good coaches lift players, make them better and really have an effect on the team. Dane Coles is a great example; he got turned from a hothead loose rake to a world class hooker with pace and swerve like a back, and niggle like Fitzpatrick.
Oh for sure. I do wonder what England might have achieved back in the late 90s, early 2000s with an effective coach. In all that time of pretty much NH dominance we won only one Grand Slam - and that with a who's who line up of England greats.
-
@Catogrande said in Foster:
@kiwiinmelb said in Foster:
Probably a lot of timing involved with looking good as a coach . Not talking about any coach in particular, just generalising .
But moving into the right job at the right time taking over the right group of players and vica versa can make or break you .
A pretty important consideration and as has been alluded to, take SCW. Known as the Bus “cos he weren’t no coach”, but he had some great cattle.
In re NZ many have compared Henry’s and Hansen’s reigns to Foster without much consideration given to the number of all time greats they had at their disposal - and in their primes. Not to denigrate H&H’s achievements or to make excuses for Foster, but that issue does have a significant impact.
There's a chicken and egg though - really good coaches lift players, make them better and really have an effect on the team. Dane Coles is a great example; he got turned from a hothead loose rake to a world class hooker with pace and swerve like a back, and niggle like Fitzpatrick.
Oh for sure. I do wonder what England might have achieved back in the late 90s, early 2000s with an effective coach. In all that time of pretty much NH dominance we won only one Grand Slam - and that with a who's who line up of England greats.
@Catogrande said in Foster:
@Catogrande said in Foster:
@kiwiinmelb said in Foster:
Probably a lot of timing involved with looking good as a coach . Not talking about any coach in particular, just generalising .
But moving into the right job at the right time taking over the right group of players and vica versa can make or break you .
A pretty important consideration and as has been alluded to, take SCW. Known as the Bus “cos he weren’t no coach”, but he had some great cattle.
In re NZ many have compared Henry’s and Hansen’s reigns to Foster without much consideration given to the number of all time greats they had at their disposal - and in their primes. Not to denigrate H&H’s achievements or to make excuses for Foster, but that issue does have a significant impact.
There's a chicken and egg though - really good coaches lift players, make them better and really have an effect on the team. Dane Coles is a great example; he got turned from a hothead loose rake to a world class hooker with pace and swerve like a back, and niggle like Fitzpatrick.
Oh for sure. I do wonder what England might have achieved back in the late 90s, early 2000s with an effective coach. In all that time of pretty much NH dominance we won only one Grand Slam - and that with a who's who line up of England greats.
I just remember seeing Josh Lewsey (who I rated very highly ) go into England camp and the longer he was there, the worse he got. Classic coaching setup not getting the best from players
-
@Catogrande said in Foster:
@Catogrande said in Foster:
@kiwiinmelb said in Foster:
Probably a lot of timing involved with looking good as a coach . Not talking about any coach in particular, just generalising .
But moving into the right job at the right time taking over the right group of players and vica versa can make or break you .
A pretty important consideration and as has been alluded to, take SCW. Known as the Bus “cos he weren’t no coach”, but he had some great cattle.
In re NZ many have compared Henry’s and Hansen’s reigns to Foster without much consideration given to the number of all time greats they had at their disposal - and in their primes. Not to denigrate H&H’s achievements or to make excuses for Foster, but that issue does have a significant impact.
There's a chicken and egg though - really good coaches lift players, make them better and really have an effect on the team. Dane Coles is a great example; he got turned from a hothead loose rake to a world class hooker with pace and swerve like a back, and niggle like Fitzpatrick.
Oh for sure. I do wonder what England might have achieved back in the late 90s, early 2000s with an effective coach. In all that time of pretty much NH dominance we won only one Grand Slam - and that with a who's who line up of England greats.
I just remember seeing Josh Lewsey (who I rated very highly ) go into England camp and the longer he was there, the worse he got. Classic coaching setup not getting the best from players
@Catogrande said in Foster:
@Catogrande said in Foster:
@kiwiinmelb said in Foster:
Probably a lot of timing involved with looking good as a coach . Not talking about any coach in particular, just generalising .
But moving into the right job at the right time taking over the right group of players and vica versa can make or break you .
A pretty important consideration and as has been alluded to, take SCW. Known as the Bus “cos he weren’t no coach”, but he had some great cattle.
In re NZ many have compared Henry’s and Hansen’s reigns to Foster without much consideration given to the number of all time greats they had at their disposal - and in their primes. Not to denigrate H&H’s achievements or to make excuses for Foster, but that issue does have a significant impact.
There's a chicken and egg though - really good coaches lift players, make them better and really have an effect on the team. Dane Coles is a great example; he got turned from a hothead loose rake to a world class hooker with pace and swerve like a back, and niggle like Fitzpatrick.
Oh for sure. I do wonder what England might have achieved back in the late 90s, early 2000s with an effective coach. In all that time of pretty much NH dominance we won only one Grand Slam - and that with a who's who line up of England greats.
I just remember seeing Josh Lewsey (who I rated very highly ) go into England camp and the longer he was there, the worse he got. Classic coaching setup not getting the best from players
Classic SCW. Lewsey - great full back, OK wing. Jason Robinson, great wing, OK full back. Now where shall I select these two this week..?
Edit: And this is a thing with so many coaches. Seemingly making selection and replacement decisions just so they can show they are "coaching".
-
@Catogrande said in Foster:
@Catogrande said in Foster:
@kiwiinmelb said in Foster:
Probably a lot of timing involved with looking good as a coach . Not talking about any coach in particular, just generalising .
But moving into the right job at the right time taking over the right group of players and vica versa can make or break you .
A pretty important consideration and as has been alluded to, take SCW. Known as the Bus “cos he weren’t no coach”, but he had some great cattle.
In re NZ many have compared Henry’s and Hansen’s reigns to Foster without much consideration given to the number of all time greats they had at their disposal - and in their primes. Not to denigrate H&H’s achievements or to make excuses for Foster, but that issue does have a significant impact.
There's a chicken and egg though - really good coaches lift players, make them better and really have an effect on the team. Dane Coles is a great example; he got turned from a hothead loose rake to a world class hooker with pace and swerve like a back, and niggle like Fitzpatrick.
Oh for sure. I do wonder what England might have achieved back in the late 90s, early 2000s with an effective coach. In all that time of pretty much NH dominance we won only one Grand Slam - and that with a who's who line up of England greats.
I just remember seeing Josh Lewsey (who I rated very highly ) go into England camp and the longer he was there, the worse he got. Classic coaching setup not getting the best from players
Classic SCW. Lewsey - great full back, OK wing. Jason Robinson, great wing, OK full back. Now where shall I select these two this week..?
Edit: And this is a thing with so many coaches. Seemingly making selection and replacement decisions just so they can show they are "coaching".
@Catogrande said in Foster:
@Catogrande said in Foster:
@Catogrande said in Foster:
@kiwiinmelb said in Foster:
Probably a lot of timing involved with looking good as a coach . Not talking about any coach in particular, just generalising .
But moving into the right job at the right time taking over the right group of players and vica versa can make or break you .
A pretty important consideration and as has been alluded to, take SCW. Known as the Bus “cos he weren’t no coach”, but he had some great cattle.
In re NZ many have compared Henry’s and Hansen’s reigns to Foster without much consideration given to the number of all time greats they had at their disposal - and in their primes. Not to denigrate H&H’s achievements or to make excuses for Foster, but that issue does have a significant impact.
There's a chicken and egg though - really good coaches lift players, make them better and really have an effect on the team. Dane Coles is a great example; he got turned from a hothead loose rake to a world class hooker with pace and swerve like a back, and niggle like Fitzpatrick.
Oh for sure. I do wonder what England might have achieved back in the late 90s, early 2000s with an effective coach. In all that time of pretty much NH dominance we won only one Grand Slam - and that with a who's who line up of England greats.
I just remember seeing Josh Lewsey (who I rated very highly ) go into England camp and the longer he was there, the worse he got. Classic coaching setup not getting the best from players
Classic SCW. Lewsey - great full back, OK wing. Jason Robinson, great wing, OK full back. Now where shall I select these two this week..?
Edit: And this is a thing with so many coaches. Seemingly making selection and replacement decisions just so they can show they are "coaching".
Selection is coaching
Players in their best position
Combinations which complement and are greater than the sum of the parts -
@Windows97 said in Foster:
I'd have to say that from the heights of 2011, which you could argue was our best All Black team ever that our current day All Blacks are literally results and history-wise the worst All Black team we've ever had.
I must retort. Oh, and the next 3-4 years were crap as well - despite the NZRFU pretty ruthlessly sacking coaches who didn't get the required results.
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Windows97 said in Foster:
I'd have to say that from the heights of 2011, which you could argue was our best All Black team ever that our current day All Blacks are literally results and history-wise the worst All Black team we've ever had.
I must retort. Oh, and the next 3-4 years were crap as well - despite the NZRFU pretty ruthlessly sacking coaches who didn't get the required results.
We were crap until about '78. And then we were inconsistent until '81.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Windows97 said in Foster:
I'd have to say that from the heights of 2011, which you could argue was our best All Black team ever that our current day All Blacks are literally results and history-wise the worst All Black team we've ever had.
I must retort. Oh, and the next 3-4 years were crap as well - despite the NZRFU pretty ruthlessly sacking coaches who didn't get the required results.
We were crap until about '78. And then we were inconsistent until '81.
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Windows97 said in Foster:
I'd have to say that from the heights of 2011, which you could argue was our best All Black team ever that our current day All Blacks are literally results and history-wise the worst All Black team we've ever had.
I must retort. Oh, and the next 3-4 years were crap as well - despite the NZRFU pretty ruthlessly sacking coaches who didn't get the required results.
We were crap until about '78. And then we were inconsistent until '81.
IIRC 1977 & Mourie was the turning point, that team played smart rugby. But fuck, it was awful time to be an AB supporter.
Eerily similar to now with a big clamour for the wonder-coach, Bob Duff, to sort everything out. Instead they went backwards.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
I hope they keep Foster as coach until 2030 its so amusing watching people try to defend him.
It's not people defending Foster. It's people not believing the hype that a coach who's undoubtedly good at SR level but with minimal and patchy experience at international level - and zero experience at Test level - is the magic solution to restore the AB's to the glory days, that NZR knows he will do this but there is some secret illuminati plot within NZR to prevent it happening.
So you end up with stupid arguments that Foster should be sacked as he lost to a team we've never lost to before, but a different criteria should apply to Robertson as he needs time to settle into the role due to inexperience at Test level.
International experience has nothing to do with coaching ability, you've either got 'it' or you don't.
It's a skill that is innate & in-built for guys such as Jones, Razor, Galthie, Erasmus, etc..
Foster just doesn't have 'it', the evidence is... he has achieved underwhelming results in every head coaching role across his 20 year coaching career with Waikato, Chiefs, & now the All Blacks...
Kirwan was the head coach of Italy & Japan, he was a poor Blues coach, after coaching Wales for 12 years Gatland lost 8/8 of his Chiefs matches, their worst losing streak ever. Experience is irrelevant in many cases.
@kiwi_expat said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
I hope they keep Foster as coach until 2030 its so amusing watching people try to defend him.
It's not people defending Foster. It's people not believing the hype that a coach who's undoubtedly good at SR level but with minimal and patchy experience at international level - and zero experience at Test level - is the magic solution to restore the AB's to the glory days, that NZR knows he will do this but there is some secret illuminati plot within NZR to prevent it happening.
So you end up with stupid arguments that Foster should be sacked as he lost to a team we've never lost to before, but a different criteria should apply to Robertson as he needs time to settle into the role due to inexperience at Test level.
International experience has nothing to do with coaching ability, you've either got 'it' or you don't.
It's a skill that is innate & in-built for guys such as Jones, Razor, Galthie, Erasmus, etc..
Foster just doesn't have 'it', the evidence is... he has achieved underwhelming results in every head coaching role across his 20 year coaching career with Waikato, Chiefs, & now the All Blacks...
Kirwan was the head coach of Italy & Japan, he was a poor Blues coach, after coaching Wales for 12 years Gatland lost 8/8 of his Chiefs matches, their worst losing streak ever. Experience is irrelevant in many cases.
What is your evidence (examples welcome) that Robertson has the innate / in built skill to be an international coach?
-
@Machpants said in 2022 All Blacks NH tour:
Gawd he's an unispiring speaker
He's full of cliches - learnings, excitement blah blah blah
@TheMojoman said in 2022 All Blacks NH tour:
@Machpants said in 2022 All Blacks NH tour:
Gawd he's an unispiring speaker
He's full of cliches - learnings, excitement blah blah blah
I can’t stand him. Razor is definitely a younger players coach . More inspirational. Foster is limp. You’d get more lift from a cheese sandwich .
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Windows97 said in Foster:
I'd have to say that from the heights of 2011, which you could argue was our best All Black team ever that our current day All Blacks are literally results and history-wise the worst All Black team we've ever had.
I must retort. Oh, and the next 3-4 years were crap as well - despite the NZRFU pretty ruthlessly sacking coaches who didn't get the required results.
We were crap until about '78. And then we were inconsistent until '81.
IIRC 1977 & Mourie was the turning point, that team played smart rugby. But fuck, it was awful time to be an AB supporter.
Eerily similar to now with a big clamour for the wonder-coach, Bob Duff, to sort everything out. Instead they went backwards.
Ah the 70's a great time to be growing up supporting the AB's NOT!!!
I didn't bother replying to the original post that caused this little diversion as I thought @booboo summed it up nicely.
Add to the similarities it came after an era of game changing global dominance, by a team stacked with all time legends coached by one of the greats.
Here's that decade's record Won 24 - Drew 2 Lost 15. Nine of the wins were against Oz, Ireland and Scotland who were the equivalents of today's Argentina I guess.
By comparison Fozzie's era has been a golden age ...
-
@TheMojoman said in 2022 All Blacks NH tour:
@Machpants said in 2022 All Blacks NH tour:
Gawd he's an unispiring speaker
He's full of cliches - learnings, excitement blah blah blah
I can’t stand him. Razor is definitely a younger players coach . More inspirational. Foster is limp. You’d get more lift from a cheese sandwich .
@Steve said in 2022 All Blacks NH tour:
@TheMojoman said in 2022 All Blacks NH tour:
@Machpants said in 2022 All Blacks NH tour:
Gawd he's an unispiring speaker
He's full of cliches - learnings, excitement blah blah blah
I can’t stand him. Razor is definitely a younger players coach . More inspirational. Foster is limp. You’d get more lift from a cheese sandwich .
Public facing speeches where you can't/ don't want to say certain things are a very different situation to dealing with players. We are only seeing one side here. Player comments seem to dispel that claim.
-
Ah the 70's a great time to be growing up supporting the AB's NOT!!!
I didn't bother replying to the original post that caused this little diversion as I thought @booboo summed it up nicely.
Add to the similarities it came after an era of game changing global dominance, by a team stacked with all time legends coached by one of the greats.
Here's that decade's record Won 24 - Drew 2 Lost 15. Nine of the wins were against Oz, Ireland and Scotland who were the equivalents of today's Argentina I guess.
By comparison Fozzie's era has been a golden age ...
Ah the 70's a great time to be growing up supporting the AB's NOT!!!
I didn't bother replying to the original post that caused this little diversion as I thought @booboo summed it up nicely.
Add to the similarities it came after an era of game changing global dominance, by a team stacked with all time legends coached by one of the greats.
Here's that decade's record Won 24 - Drew 2 Lost 15. Nine of the wins were against Oz, Ireland and Scotland who were the equivalents of today's Argentina I guess.
By comparison Fozzie's era has been a golden age ...
Even the "good" years had their disasters. Cornelson's (father of the Japan player) 4 tries, the Bastille Day Massacre, 1st Test v France '77 etc etc
-
Ah the 70's a great time to be growing up supporting the AB's NOT!!!
I didn't bother replying to the original post that caused this little diversion as I thought @booboo summed it up nicely.
Add to the similarities it came after an era of game changing global dominance, by a team stacked with all time legends coached by one of the greats.
Here's that decade's record Won 24 - Drew 2 Lost 15. Nine of the wins were against Oz, Ireland and Scotland who were the equivalents of today's Argentina I guess.
By comparison Fozzie's era has been a golden age ...
Even the "good" years had their disasters. Cornelson's (father of the Japan player) 4 tries, the Bastille Day Massacre, 1st Test v France '77 etc etc
Ah the 70's a great time to be growing up supporting the AB's NOT!!!
I didn't bother replying to the original post that caused this little diversion as I thought @booboo summed it up nicely.
Add to the similarities it came after an era of game changing global dominance, by a team stacked with all time legends coached by one of the greats.
Here's that decade's record Won 24 - Drew 2 Lost 15. Nine of the wins were against Oz, Ireland and Scotland who were the equivalents of today's Argentina I guess.
By comparison Fozzie's era has been a golden age ...
Even the "good" years had their disasters. Cornelson's (father of the Japan player) 4 tries, the Bastille Day Massacre, 1st Test v France '77 etc etc
I was at the cornelson 4 tries game and reeves French team flogging us at eden park with running rugby as a teenager.
It was a bit like now in that it felt like we were stuck in an older style game plan that doesn’t appear to be as effective as it used to be
-
@kiwi_expat said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
I hope they keep Foster as coach until 2030 its so amusing watching people try to defend him.
It's not people defending Foster. It's people not believing the hype that a coach who's undoubtedly good at SR level but with minimal and patchy experience at international level - and zero experience at Test level - is the magic solution to restore the AB's to the glory days, that NZR knows he will do this but there is some secret illuminati plot within NZR to prevent it happening.
So you end up with stupid arguments that Foster should be sacked as he lost to a team we've never lost to before, but a different criteria should apply to Robertson as he needs time to settle into the role due to inexperience at Test level.
International experience has nothing to do with coaching ability, you've either got 'it' or you don't.
It's a skill that is innate & in-built for guys such as Jones, Razor, Galthie, Erasmus, etc..
Foster just doesn't have 'it', the evidence is... he has achieved underwhelming results in every head coaching role across his 20 year coaching career with Waikato, Chiefs, & now the All Blacks...
Kirwan was the head coach of Italy & Japan, he was a poor Blues coach, after coaching Wales for 12 years Gatland lost 8/8 of his Chiefs matches, their worst losing streak ever. Experience is irrelevant in many cases.
What is your evidence (examples welcome) that Robertson has the innate / in built skill to be an international coach?
@MajorRage said in Foster:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
I hope they keep Foster as coach until 2030 its so amusing watching people try to defend him.
It's not people defending Foster. It's people not believing the hype that a coach who's undoubtedly good at SR level but with minimal and patchy experience at international level - and zero experience at Test level - is the magic solution to restore the AB's to the glory days, that NZR knows he will do this but there is some secret illuminati plot within NZR to prevent it happening.
So you end up with stupid arguments that Foster should be sacked as he lost to a team we've never lost to before, but a different criteria should apply to Robertson as he needs time to settle into the role due to inexperience at Test level.
International experience has nothing to do with coaching ability, you've either got 'it' or you don't.
It's a skill that is innate & in-built for guys such as Jones, Razor, Galthie, Erasmus, etc..
Foster just doesn't have 'it', the evidence is... he has achieved underwhelming results in every head coaching role across his 20 year coaching career with Waikato, Chiefs, & now the All Blacks...
Kirwan was the head coach of Italy & Japan, he was a poor Blues coach, after coaching Wales for 12 years Gatland lost 8/8 of his Chiefs matches, their worst losing streak ever. Experience is irrelevant in many cases.
What is your evidence (examples welcome) that Robertson has the innate / in built skill to be an international coach?
Maybe, because he has developed a track record that quite comfortably exceeds what Robbie Deans, Wayne Smith, Graham Henry, Dave Rennie, etc.. ever achieved at Super Rugby and provincial level?
Razor is obviously a once in a generation coach, and players such as Izzy Dagg who've played under NZ's greatest coach (Wayne Smith) have stressed that Razor is on his level.
-
Ah the 70's a great time to be growing up supporting the AB's NOT!!!
I didn't bother replying to the original post that caused this little diversion as I thought @booboo summed it up nicely.
Add to the similarities it came after an era of game changing global dominance, by a team stacked with all time legends coached by one of the greats.
Here's that decade's record Won 24 - Drew 2 Lost 15. Nine of the wins were against Oz, Ireland and Scotland who were the equivalents of today's Argentina I guess.
By comparison Fozzie's era has been a golden age ...
Even the "good" years had their disasters. Cornelson's (father of the Japan player) 4 tries, the Bastille Day Massacre, 1st Test v France '77 etc etc
-
@MajorRage said in Foster:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
I hope they keep Foster as coach until 2030 its so amusing watching people try to defend him.
It's not people defending Foster. It's people not believing the hype that a coach who's undoubtedly good at SR level but with minimal and patchy experience at international level - and zero experience at Test level - is the magic solution to restore the AB's to the glory days, that NZR knows he will do this but there is some secret illuminati plot within NZR to prevent it happening.
So you end up with stupid arguments that Foster should be sacked as he lost to a team we've never lost to before, but a different criteria should apply to Robertson as he needs time to settle into the role due to inexperience at Test level.
International experience has nothing to do with coaching ability, you've either got 'it' or you don't.
It's a skill that is innate & in-built for guys such as Jones, Razor, Galthie, Erasmus, etc..
Foster just doesn't have 'it', the evidence is... he has achieved underwhelming results in every head coaching role across his 20 year coaching career with Waikato, Chiefs, & now the All Blacks...
Kirwan was the head coach of Italy & Japan, he was a poor Blues coach, after coaching Wales for 12 years Gatland lost 8/8 of his Chiefs matches, their worst losing streak ever. Experience is irrelevant in many cases.
What is your evidence (examples welcome) that Robertson has the innate / in built skill to be an international coach?
Maybe, because he has developed a track record that quite comfortably exceeds what Robbie Deans, Wayne Smith, Graham Henry, Dave Rennie, etc.. ever achieved at Super Rugby and provincial level?
Razor is obviously a once in a generation coach, and players such as Izzy Dagg who've played under NZ's greatest coach (Wayne Smith) have stressed that Razor is on his level.
@kiwi_expat said in Foster:
@MajorRage said in Foster:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
I hope they keep Foster as coach until 2030 its so amusing watching people try to defend him.
It's not people defending Foster. It's people not believing the hype that a coach who's undoubtedly good at SR level but with minimal and patchy experience at international level - and zero experience at Test level - is the magic solution to restore the AB's to the glory days, that NZR knows he will do this but there is some secret illuminati plot within NZR to prevent it happening.
So you end up with stupid arguments that Foster should be sacked as he lost to a team we've never lost to before, but a different criteria should apply to Robertson as he needs time to settle into the role due to inexperience at Test level.
International experience has nothing to do with coaching ability, you've either got 'it' or you don't.
It's a skill that is innate & in-built for guys such as Jones, Razor, Galthie, Erasmus, etc..
Foster just doesn't have 'it', the evidence is... he has achieved underwhelming results in every head coaching role across his 20 year coaching career with Waikato, Chiefs, & now the All Blacks...
Kirwan was the head coach of Italy & Japan, he was a poor Blues coach, after coaching Wales for 12 years Gatland lost 8/8 of his Chiefs matches, their worst losing streak ever. Experience is irrelevant in many cases.
What is your evidence (examples welcome) that Robertson has the innate / in built skill to be an international coach?
Maybe, because he has developed a track record that quite comfortably exceeds what Robbie Deans, Wayne Smith, Graham Henry, Dave Rennie, etc.. ever achieved at Super Rugby and provincial level?
Razor is obviously a once in a generation coach, and players such as Izzy Dagg who've played under NZ's greatest coach (Wayne Smith) have stressed that Razor is on his level.
Don't you think it may have a bit to do with the players and financial reserves he inherited. Crusaders have had the massive benefit of only having to carry two contributing provinces and being able to recruit heavily into the pair of them as players see a clear selection path that others can't offer. Yes Razor is clearly a very good coach. But how would others have done in comparison? The Aussie and Saffer teams were on the slide. They have lost a few matches v the other NZ sides after all.
Crusaders are consistently better than other super teams at playing to the limit of the rules and testing the refs. Having an experienced core of players certainly helps that and is expertly done. But I don't see the masterful attacking plays that you seem to expect of the ABs.
My take is that the Crusaders approach is not so sure to be as effective against the better international coaches. All theoretical but hopefully that explains why some of us are not as sure as you are about coach capability.
-
@MajorRage said in Foster:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
I hope they keep Foster as coach until 2030 its so amusing watching people try to defend him.
It's not people defending Foster. It's people not believing the hype that a coach who's undoubtedly good at SR level but with minimal and patchy experience at international level - and zero experience at Test level - is the magic solution to restore the AB's to the glory days, that NZR knows he will do this but there is some secret illuminati plot within NZR to prevent it happening.
So you end up with stupid arguments that Foster should be sacked as he lost to a team we've never lost to before, but a different criteria should apply to Robertson as he needs time to settle into the role due to inexperience at Test level.
International experience has nothing to do with coaching ability, you've either got 'it' or you don't.
It's a skill that is innate & in-built for guys such as Jones, Razor, Galthie, Erasmus, etc..
Foster just doesn't have 'it', the evidence is... he has achieved underwhelming results in every head coaching role across his 20 year coaching career with Waikato, Chiefs, & now the All Blacks...
Kirwan was the head coach of Italy & Japan, he was a poor Blues coach, after coaching Wales for 12 years Gatland lost 8/8 of his Chiefs matches, their worst losing streak ever. Experience is irrelevant in many cases.
What is your evidence (examples welcome) that Robertson has the innate / in built skill to be an international coach?
Maybe, because he has developed a track record that quite comfortably exceeds what Robbie Deans, Wayne Smith, Graham Henry, Dave Rennie, etc.. ever achieved at Super Rugby and provincial level?
Razor is obviously a once in a generation coach, and players such as Izzy Dagg who've played under NZ's greatest coach (Wayne Smith) have stressed that Razor is on his level.
@kiwi_expat said in Foster:
who've played under NZ's greatest coach (Wayne Smith)
Ironically not the greatest record as an international Head Coach....
So, there is a precedent for a coach coming out of Christchurch with a good provincial record and struggling to make the step up. Which is what I think others are saying.
-
@MajorRage said in Foster:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
I hope they keep Foster as coach until 2030 its so amusing watching people try to defend him.
It's not people defending Foster. It's people not believing the hype that a coach who's undoubtedly good at SR level but with minimal and patchy experience at international level - and zero experience at Test level - is the magic solution to restore the AB's to the glory days, that NZR knows he will do this but there is some secret illuminati plot within NZR to prevent it happening.
So you end up with stupid arguments that Foster should be sacked as he lost to a team we've never lost to before, but a different criteria should apply to Robertson as he needs time to settle into the role due to inexperience at Test level.
International experience has nothing to do with coaching ability, you've either got 'it' or you don't.
It's a skill that is innate & in-built for guys such as Jones, Razor, Galthie, Erasmus, etc..
Foster just doesn't have 'it', the evidence is... he has achieved underwhelming results in every head coaching role across his 20 year coaching career with Waikato, Chiefs, & now the All Blacks...
Kirwan was the head coach of Italy & Japan, he was a poor Blues coach, after coaching Wales for 12 years Gatland lost 8/8 of his Chiefs matches, their worst losing streak ever. Experience is irrelevant in many cases.
What is your evidence (examples welcome) that Robertson has the innate / in built skill to be an international coach?
Maybe, because he has developed a track record that quite comfortably exceeds what Robbie Deans, Wayne Smith, Graham Henry, Dave Rennie, etc.. ever achieved at Super Rugby and provincial level?
Razor is obviously a once in a generation coach, and players such as Izzy Dagg who've played under NZ's greatest coach (Wayne Smith) have stressed that Razor is on his level.
@kiwi_expat said in Foster:
@MajorRage said in Foster:
@kiwi_expat said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
I hope they keep Foster as coach until 2030 its so amusing watching people try to defend him.
It's not people defending Foster. It's people not believing the hype that a coach who's undoubtedly good at SR level but with minimal and patchy experience at international level - and zero experience at Test level - is the magic solution to restore the AB's to the glory days, that NZR knows he will do this but there is some secret illuminati plot within NZR to prevent it happening.
So you end up with stupid arguments that Foster should be sacked as he lost to a team we've never lost to before, but a different criteria should apply to Robertson as he needs time to settle into the role due to inexperience at Test level.
International experience has nothing to do with coaching ability, you've either got 'it' or you don't.
It's a skill that is innate & in-built for guys such as Jones, Razor, Galthie, Erasmus, etc..
Foster just doesn't have 'it', the evidence is... he has achieved underwhelming results in every head coaching role across his 20 year coaching career with Waikato, Chiefs, & now the All Blacks...
Kirwan was the head coach of Italy & Japan, he was a poor Blues coach, after coaching Wales for 12 years Gatland lost 8/8 of his Chiefs matches, their worst losing streak ever. Experience is irrelevant in many cases.
What is your evidence (examples welcome) that Robertson has the innate / in built skill to be an international coach?
Maybe, because he has developed a track record that quite comfortably exceeds what Robbie Deans, Wayne Smith, Graham Henry, Dave Rennie, etc.. ever achieved at Super Rugby and provincial level?
Razor is obviously a once in a generation coach, and players such as Izzy Dagg who've played under NZ's greatest coach (Wayne Smith) have stressed that Razor is on his level.
All jokes aside is he your Dad or something?
This isn’t even a debate or discussion. The level you put him on, with NO international results is beyond absurd.
-
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Foster:
It is hard to pinpoint the problem with this current group. The talent is there, they try their hearts out, they have good support, but what happens on the pitch is just not good enough or ruthless enough to get the job done IMO (consistently win against top-tier opposition and win the World Cup). Here is my theory and I think Carlos sees it as well. It seems that the ABs camp has become too comfortable and isolated. They are the "AB family". That absolute ruthlessness and desire to get that 1 or 2 % to get over the line is not there anymore. If they don't play well, and there are few consequences. Once upon a time one bad performance and you were out of the team, possibly forever. Now we have players still there that can be terribly off the pace (Sam Cane is the classic example). Go away to Japan, no worries, you are automatically back despite not showing you are better than others. They are consistently answering their critics by saying they only worry about what is happening inside the camp, etc, etc. Not all bad things of course, maybe it is even a sign of the times and I am a grump, but just maybe it has led to inadequate performances.
Hence I really think a "clean out" is what the ABs have needed since 2019.A lot to agree with there.
I think I missed Carlos’ comments, anyone link easily?
