The Silver Fern

@stodders said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:

I'll play devil's advocate here:

Foster's time as head coach with the Chiefs wasn't great. But people can develop and improve if they show that they can learn from past mistakes.

People defending Foster always say this, but it isn't true. Poor coaches never turn into good coaches.

By the time Foster left the Chiefs he had been coaching for well over a decade. If he wasn't good by then, he never was going to be. He showed no upward path then, yet we are meant to believe that he would start showing one twenty years into his career? That is the height of optimism.

While people do learn from past mistakes, they also carry over old ideas and ways from the past that rapidly get out of date. Once you get to a certain amount of experience, the new things you learn generally don't cancel out all the old baggage that you carry.

This has been studied in various fields. Teachers, for example, are best after eight years experience, regardless of how old they were when they started. After that time they generally get worse with added experience.

It's why one of the best things a person who is a bit jaded can do is do something else, even if only for a short while.

Foster is doing exactly what the nay-sayers predicted -- picking favourites he won't drop, having fantastic performances followed by inexplicably bad ones, fielding teams with game plans that are out of date. That's who he is, and more experience is not going to change that.

Can you persuade me by giving examples of coaches who got better after more than a dozen years on the job? They are few and far between. Even great coaches tend to fade with age, rather than get better, which is also contrary to the "you get better with experience" line.

NZ Rugby got cocky. Like the great Auckland run of the 90's, then the great Crusaders run when they persisted with Blackadder, they actually believed that their systems were more important than the people they hired. As long as the man involved knew the system, then he would get results, because the system was so awesome. Someone like Robertson who was obviously going to change the system was actively avoided.

Foster was hired not because he was the best coach, and they knew that, but because he would continue the system. Turns out that their system always depended on having the best coaches after all.

So, as we saw with Blackadder and the Crusaders, a slip in results did not lead to a change in coach. They simply knew the system would win out, so they persisted for eight years of mediocrity. Luckily for them the next coach was from the system too, but good, so they started winning again. They are going to be baffled in Crusader land when the system doesn't work when he goes. The Blues were less lucky. They could not get their heads around why their system didn't give them championships once Graham Henry left. It turns out their much vaunted system required having the best coach, after all. (They didn't even get it once Henry returned and gave them one more championship, they were that pig-headed about it.)

The Chiefs persisted with eight years of Foster. The Crusaders with eight years of Blackadder. The Blues decades of uselessness. That NZ Rugby will come to their senses and realise that the coach is the problem is still some four years away. If we are lucky.

@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks vs Springboks - Twickenham:

This game wouldn't even be played if there wasn't a RWC.

Bollocks.

Every other team is playing warm-up games. Many are playing several. Yet you think we should go into the RWC absolutely cold? If we had gone in cold, this performance would have been against France.

I've stayed off commenting on the Fern this year because I've ridden the Foster train before, and I am well aware that this is exactly what his teams do. Always have.

The bad parts of that game were pure Foster. Back to poor exits. Back to defensive bombs. Back to poor discipline. Still never dropping players, ever, no matter how bad. Still the game plan from 2005, where we think we can run other sides off their feet. Still "clever" selections like making sure our best hooker gets almost no game time, loses his mojo, and is then terrible when you finally let him get onto the field.

After four years of this bullshit, I can't believe some of you think Foster is not the main culprit. How many terrible records does he have to break before you realise that he is a dreadful coach? You just watched that dreck, and think, "you know what, I'll stick up for him".

And for those of you who think that the All Blacks have had a wake-up call and won't be this bad again, well I have news for you. We will never be this bad again -- it was, after all our biggest loss ever -- but Foster is capable of pretty much anything, when it comes to bad.

@taniwharugby said in NH ditch Junior rep rugby teams...:

I struggle to understand the drivers, how is removing that representative opportunity for the better quality kids going to enhance their enjoyment of the game?

My experience is that junior rep rugby doesn't target the better kids, so I have quite a lot of sympathy for the idea. Junior reps are the kids that have played the longest and/or are the earlier developers and/or play for the best teams and coaches. As a kid who was at the wrong end of the year, I thought I was much worse at rugby than I was, whereas it was merely that I was close to 11 when the "stars" were almost 13. At that age it's a huge matter.

As a guy who has seen literally thousands of kids flow through from junior rep rugby into secondary school rugby, I don't see any link between who is good at 18 and who is good at 12. I've seen so many kids come into school all pumped up because they played Roller Mills or such, only to find that they were merely early developers. Meanwhile some quiet kid who develops late, but has a good work ethic, is a much better player. Our school stopped selecting teams based on previous rep experience and went with who trained harder.

There's quite a few on this site that argue even 1st XV rugby continues the practice of merely selecting the biggest players, rather than the most skillful, which is why Auckland can't convert its massive base into provincial dominance.

And the worst part of the rep system is that it ingrains any selections based on age/size etc. Those kids get to play more and get the best coaches. Meanwhile some late developer gets only half the rugby and less good coaching.

This is not to say that NH is right. Sometimes a bad system is better than no system. I simply do not think that being selected as a rep, aged 11, is any guide to anything much.

Much guess will be that it will have zero long term effect on NH rugby.

@No-Quarter said in Bledisoe #1:

The fact that they’ve picked a team that so many on the Fern wanted makes me nervous. As a collective we have a strong proven record of not having a fucking clue what we are talking about.

You say that. And yet when I have to listen to the shit spouted at work about rugby I think fondly of Fern wisdom.

We might always be wrong. But not half as wrong as most fans.

@mariner4life said in Foster must go:

I'm just throwing it out there, maybe, just maybe, we lose to Ireland because they have better players than us now. And we, the NZ rugby fan, refuse to believe it because it has never been so.

Foster must be one of the most unlucky bastards ever to live then.

He must have had crap players at the Chiefs, only for Rennie to get lucky and have brilliant ones just as he left.

And then he takes a winning AB side, albeit with a couple of issues, and all the players turn to custard just at the same time! Players who lead Super sides well, only to be headless chooks when playing for him.

Rennie actually has that issue. But his sides still have some structure, whether winning or losing. The ABs don't even know what they are doing half the time.

Foster has done with the ABs exactly what those who watched the Chiefs carefully said would happen. We said he would have favourites that he would not drop, that his selections otherwise would be baffling, that his "game plan" is basically to spread it wide and hope. And worst of all, his teams would be poorly prepared mentally . They weren't lucky guesses.

@canefan said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):

Apart from the sitter he dropped in Lions III I thought he was busy and enthusiastic and generally played quite well

"Busy and enthusiastic" are what we say about boys in teams when, actually, they are a little bit shit.

@Dan54 said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:

Geez reprobate, calm down mate, lol.

He's calm compared to what I want to type!

You win some, you lose some. But when you lose when you used to win, you need to examine what caused it. And Foster simply does not do that. That angers me. A quiet, steaming anger that has been building since he was appointed.

He is leader of one of the best professional teams/franchises on the planet. You expect a fully professional attitude from him. Yet nothing is his fault, even when a disaster unfolds in front of his eyes. He doesn't do what he expects his players to do -- look at their game, see the issues and fix them.

It's not that we are average. It's that nothing is changing, and so we see the same average things time and time again.

@KiwiMurph said in All Blacks Vs Springboks RC Week 2:

@voodoo said in All Blacks Vs Springboks RC Week 2:

and DMac's effort last week was the ultimate R&D showcase.

'The ultimate rocks and diamonds showcase'. You think that's just a tad hyperbolic? On the charge down the Argies were miles offside and I remember he dropped a ball in the second half but the ultimate rocks and diamonds is way overboard.

DMac was not responsible for that charge down in my eyes.

First Smith plays silly buggers -- I think trying to milk a penalty. Then he throws a poor pass. Beauden Barrett doesn't like what he has to play with and so does what he always does in that situation -- shovels it on to someone in a worse position. DMac could then either hold the ball, and concede a 5 metre scrum to Argentina, or at least try to clear it.

He was put in a very bad situation, not really of his making.

@BerniesCorner said in All Blacks vs England 2:

Take out Scott, Jordie and Beauden we would have lost.
100%

So take out three key players of the night in any team and they would be far worse. That sort of how it always goes.

Take out Marcus Smith and England would have scored about 6 points! They were not getting anything against our front-on defence, which is a splendid improvement.

We played with a calmness that has been absent for much of the last few years. Even when behind, we didn't start throwing miracle balls or start chip-kicking constantly. We trusted our defence and -- Taylor aside -- didn't try to win balls at rucks that weren't there for the taking.

Some of the selections will take a while to sort out, but I am very pleased with the better mental side of things.

@no-quarter said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:

@hooroo said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:

@duluth said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:

@hooroo

Yes, that did seem to help

One year was it?

Because I was told to judge Tana after three years.. we're almost at three years now.. now I'm told Tana should get another 2 years added to his contract

The strange thing is I can't find a Blues fan that wants that

Yes and also Razor did it in his first year too!

Boyd got the Canes a home final in his first year, then won the thing the next year. Fair bit of evidence to suggest a quality coach can make a big difference.

I think the evidence the coach makes a big difference is overwhelming.

I did a check and iirc anyone who won a Super Rugby title did it in their first three years, and for most the turn-around was immediately obvious. McKenzie at the Reds, the most dramatic.

Foster managed a final in his fifth? year, and the team was crap the next, showing it was fluke.

Even great coaches tended to get worse over time, rather than better. (I suspect they don't get worse, just that the opposition know what to expect, so the results slip a bit.)

There is zero chance, based on previous history, that Tana can turn the ship around.

The Chiefs kept hoping Foster would deliver, the Crusaders kept hoping Blackadder would. They didn't, and neither will Tana.

@victor-meldrew said in All Blacks v Ireland, 2021 NH Tour:

@mofitzy_ said in All Blacks v Ireland, 2021 NH Tour:

@victor-meldrew
Players of a known quantity are underperforming, new players don't cut the mustard. That's on the coach.

Or the players just aren't there? The player pool at 9 isn't exactly overflowing and that's not down to Foster

Except it is. Robertson can win Super Trophies with Drummond -- who isn't even in the reckoning for the ABs. Brad Weber can play some amazing rugby, with the right game plan. (I loathe TJP with a passion, and can't way to see the back of him, but that's more about what a tool he is as a person.)

Robertson's hardly a lone exception. We can all cite coaches who just seem to get the best out of players. And other coaches who turn gold into, um, not gold.

It's no good saying that NZ isn't producing the quality of players we used to, when our Super and provincial teams are streaks ahead of everyone else. And when our rejects are starting players for other countries.

Our game plan seems to be, kick it as soon as you get it except in their 22, and hope to score from individual brilliance. It's a shit plan, and it deserves what it got last night. It isn't like Beauden was carving up when he was on, he kicked it even more than Mo'unga. It has to be the plan, not the players.

I don't get the love for Blackadder. Sure he's busy, but Papalii is the same but more accurate.

They will start Cane and Savea for certain. Then someone big to carry the ball, so Ioane or Sotutu. Papalii and Barrett as reserves.

Starting Cane, Savea and Blackadder would be ... interesting. But not in a good way.

@Yeetyaah said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:

Fuck man I'm no Fozzie lover but this reflects on everyone who's part of the team not just him. Calm down and take a step back fellas. We say all this shit but we know next week we'll back our team and if they win then all will be well.

No. Fuck off yourself.

I'm sick of losing to teams we used to never -- never -- lose to. No matter how average we were.

This is down to one man. One man out of his depth. I stopped backing any team he coached decades ago and I'm not going to start now.

@Bones said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:

@Frank said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:

I'd like to hear from Foster's most ardent defenders (Crucial you're so quiet mate) as to why he should stay on or what the Fern is missing?

Foster doesn't have defenders. There's just people that don't bitch and moan about the same old shit time and again and actually try and come up with something coherent.

Foster does have defenders. The NZRU for one. The media aren't laying into him half as much as they should be. It is still "The All Blacks need to do this ..." and "the All Blacks need to do that ..." rather than pointing the finger solidly at him.

I try to keep my rants about him to less than one a month, but how is the position that he is the real problem, and should go, not "coherent"?

I said it about him when he was Chiefs coach. I said it about Blackadder after a couple of years with the Crusaders too. At a certain point it becomes clear that a good team is being held back. After that point no amount of analysis helps.

@Victor-Meldrew said in All Blacks vs England 2:

We were anything but calm in the first 60 minutes. It was an error-strewn performance up with the worst of the the Ireland series.

Our lineout was appalling, but other than that we were not "error strewn".

We didn't drop a lot of ball forward (including taking all the high kicks they put up). Our scrum was stable. We didn't give away heaps of penalties. We didn't miss heaps of tackles and they made almost no line breaks.

We took some wrong options, but no-one ever gets them all right. We didn't make many yards with the forwards, but that isn't an error.

Every test has errors because of the pressure they are under, but in the key areas of not dropping ball or dropping tackles we were much improved over the start of the last few years.

Some people on this forum seem to think that not only should the ABs be the best, that they should be perfect too.

@baron-silas-greenback

I find it difficult, in fact nearly impossible, to believe Warner is a nice guy off the field. Nice guys simply do not do what he does.

They don't spout anger relentlessly and the go all cry-baby when the retaliation is equally brutal. They don't cheat as soon as they look like losing. They don't spout cant about how they'd never do something and then do it. They don't use their kids as shields.

I'm sure he's a decent seeming fellow in the pub when everything is going well and everyone's having a laugh. I'm sure he loves his wife and family. I can even believe he's remorseful, for the moment.

But he'll be just like he always was after a season or two.

So, while I have not particularly laid into him in this thread, I don't think he's been hard done by.

People have been asking him to behave better for years and not only has he ignored them, but he has laughed at the requests. He himself showed little compassion for others caught ball tampering.

I'll show him exactly the same regard as he shows others.

If reports are even half to be believed, I will be joined by his team mates.

@Jaguares4real said in TRC: Pumas v All Blacks:

So do you go all out with a shallow playing pool + by far worst travel schedule in world rugby or do you pick & choose what games you prioritise

The Pumas do not have "by far the worst travel schedule". You're on a group from New Zealand for goodness sake. We're literally the furthest away from all the other rugby playing nations. Your NH tour tours are both much less far and with far less time difference.

Argentina in the Rugby Championship have one more long trip than NZ or Australia, but there are direct flights to each country involved. South Africa have to travel just as far as you.

The difference is that we win away from home, so people assume that we don't have travel issues. That's not true -- we've merely learnt to overcome them. The Pumas problem is not the travel, but that they don't play well away from home, regardless of the travel time involved.

@dan54 said in All Blacks 2021:

Not sure if you remember how many 'experts' knew that NZRU got it wrong reappointing Henry and co after 2007 WC, and how many reckoned that Wallabies were going to beat us with the 'superior' coach in Robbie Deans. Bet you don't hear many of them repeating it nowadays.

But in both cases:

1. The first year gave a picture of what was to follow. Deans never did get any better. Henry continued to have a magnificent team (the loss that never happened was always the aberration).
2. We still said wait until the second year's out before re-signing. As we are doing here.

It's one thing to be wrong before a coach is appointed. But after seeing a year of trash, being wrong after he has had a run is just plain idiotic.

At international level, and indeed Super Rugby, coaches who haven't got a winning team by the end of their second year never will (reliably) have one. Really good coaches turn things around pretty damned fast. Rennie won his first year with a team that Foster got eight years with. Robertson won early, while Blackadder never could despite the Crusader's faith that somehow it would get better with time.

If the ABs aren't looking a lot better by the end of 2021, then they never will under Foster.

Oh, and paragraphs help others to read what you write. That's why they invented them.

@antipodean said in Foster:

Everything Foster's worst detractors said in 2019 has come to pass.

I have been about as anti-Foster as anyone on the Fern. Even the good wins didn't move me, because I knew it wouldn't last.

But I didn't predict this train wreck, no matter how much I dislike him. I still assumed he had some semblance of ability, if only from experience. I was certain the ABs would beat Argentina, and even suspected we would look good doing so.

He's been far worse than I, or anyone else that I can think of, predicted.

@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:

Holy shit.

I just saw the Crusaders forward pack and compared it to the Canes.

Only a complete meltdown from the Crusaders and FABCRR (Future AB Coach Razor Robertson) could lose them this game.

Canes complete underdogs.

Todd Blackadder had forward packs like that, including McCaw.

Robertson has taken them from contenders to unbackable favourites in two years.