Foster, Robertson etc
-
@reprobate said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
How dare someone leave people open to criticism in public eh Steve? Best you criticise them in public for that.
Your closed doors is how we got Foster in the first place. The hiring process was abysmal, ruled out all the good options deliberately so your mate could get the job. And the organisation, having previously wheeled out bullshit like 'coaches must have international experience' when it suited, then pick a guy without any head coach success in NZ, let alone inernationally.
Zero integrity.Yeah, it's ridiculous for Hansen say Foster's a good coach and call out some of the online abuse when everyone knows Foster's rubbish and deserves everything he gets, isn't it? Hansen's obviously clueless and it's not as if he's had any decent experience or success at international level so he's best ignored.
And as for Mo'unga praising Foster, what would he know about coaching quality? Has he ever been coached by anyone decent?
An alternate view is these guys might actually have more insight into the current problems than most other people - including rugby hacks - and the current problems in NZ Rugby might run a wee bit deeper than the coaching skills of one bloke. Bit bloody inconvenient, if that is the case, eh?
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@reprobate said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
How dare someone leave people open to criticism in public eh Steve? Best you criticise them in public for that.
Your closed doors is how we got Foster in the first place. The hiring process was abysmal, ruled out all the good options deliberately so your mate could get the job. And the organisation, having previously wheeled out bullshit like 'coaches must have international experience' when it suited, then pick a guy without any head coach success in NZ, let alone inernationally.
Zero integrity.Yeah, it's ridiculous for Hansen say Foster's a good coach and call out some of the online abuse when everyone knows Foster's rubbish and deserves everything he gets, isn't it? Hansen's obviously clueless and it's not as if he's had any decent experience or success at international level so he's best ignored.
And as for Mo'unga praising Foster, what would he know about coaching quality? Has he ever been coached by anyone decent?
An alternate view is these guys might actually have more insight into the current problems than most other people - including rugby hacks - and the current problems in NZ Rugby might run a wee bit deeper than the coaching skills of one bloke. Bit bloody inconvenient, if that is the case, eh?
There are deeper problems, but getting rid of Foster is important. Both can be true.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@reprobate said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
How dare someone leave people open to criticism in public eh Steve? Best you criticise them in public for that.
Your closed doors is how we got Foster in the first place. The hiring process was abysmal, ruled out all the good options deliberately so your mate could get the job. And the organisation, having previously wheeled out bullshit like 'coaches must have international experience' when it suited, then pick a guy without any head coach success in NZ, let alone inernationally.
Zero integrity.Yeah, it's ridiculous for Hansen say Foster's a good coach and call out some of the online abuse when everyone knows Foster's rubbish and deserves everything he gets, isn't it? Hansen's obviously clueless and it's not as if he's had any decent experience or success at international level so he's best ignored.
And as for Mo'unga praising Foster, what would he know about coaching quality? Has he ever been coached by anyone decent?
An alternate view is these guys might actually have more insight into the current problems than most other people - including rugby hacks - and the current problems in NZ Rugby might run a wee bit deeper than the coaching skills of one bloke. Bit bloody inconvenient, if that is the case, eh?
There are deeper problems, but getting rid of Foster is important. Both can be true.
Deep down I am convinced they could replace every one at NZR and that won't fix our coaching problems.
However on a more positive note I have done a scientific study of 2021 to 2022 and not only did the ABs have DMac but also a much higher % of mullets.
Correlation is not causation but nothing else seems to work.
Nb if Hansen thinks NZR was harmonious when he was there I wonder how he explains the RWC2019 result.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@reprobate said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
How dare someone leave people open to criticism in public eh Steve? Best you criticise them in public for that.
Your closed doors is how we got Foster in the first place. The hiring process was abysmal, ruled out all the good options deliberately so your mate could get the job. And the organisation, having previously wheeled out bullshit like 'coaches must have international experience' when it suited, then pick a guy without any head coach success in NZ, let alone inernationally.
Zero integrity.Yeah, it's ridiculous for Hansen say Foster's a good coach and call out some of the online abuse when everyone knows Foster's rubbish and deserves everything he gets, isn't it? Hansen's obviously clueless and it's not as if he's had any decent experience or success at international level so he's best ignored.
And as for Mo'unga praising Foster, what would he know about coaching quality? Has he ever been coached by anyone decent?
An alternate view is these guys might actually have more insight into the current problems than most other people - including rugby hacks - and the current problems in NZ Rugby might run a wee bit deeper than the coaching skills of one bloke. Bit bloody inconvenient, if that is the case, eh?
There are deeper problems, but getting rid of Foster is important. Both can be true.
@Frank said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@reprobate said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
How dare someone leave people open to criticism in public eh Steve? Best you criticise them in public for that.
Your closed doors is how we got Foster in the first place. The hiring process was abysmal, ruled out all the good options deliberately so your mate could get the job. And the organisation, having previously wheeled out bullshit like 'coaches must have international experience' when it suited, then pick a guy without any head coach success in NZ, let alone inernationally.
Zero integrity.Yeah, it's ridiculous for Hansen say Foster's a good coach and call out some of the online abuse when everyone knows Foster's rubbish and deserves everything he gets, isn't it? Hansen's obviously clueless and it's not as if he's had any decent experience or success at international level so he's best ignored.
And as for Mo'unga praising Foster, what would he know about coaching quality? Has he ever been coached by anyone decent?
An alternate view is these guys might actually have more insight into the current problems than most other people - including rugby hacks - and the current problems in NZ Rugby might run a wee bit deeper than the coaching skills of one bloke. Bit bloody inconvenient, if that is the case, eh?
There are deeper problems, but getting rid of Foster is important. Both can be true.
It's of paramount important to some people. But if Foster's the problem, then what do you do when the solution you put in place doesn't work? Shrug your shoulders and say at least we tried something?
When you unpick the "Foster must go" argument and ask how many Tests you'd give a Foster-replacement to improve things (like the win percentage) before he too gets sacked, things get a bit more vague and/or complicated for some reason. Really can't think why if the quality of the coach is a key problem.
-
@Chris-B said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@mariner4life A random dude in ChCh might know because the Crusaders (and the Blues) would have to be looking for new coaches.
But, yeah - if Fozzie is a dead man they should have buried him and Joe be taking the team to SA.
If that's NZR's grand plan, then they're going to be in a bit of a bind when Fozzie starts winning everything with more competent assistants.
@antipodean said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Chris-B said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@mariner4life A random dude in ChCh might know because the Crusaders (and the Blues) would have to be looking for new coaches.
But, yeah - if Fozzie is a dead man they should have buried him and Joe be taking the team to SA.
If that's NZR's grand plan, then they're going to be in a bit of a bind when Fozzie starts winning everything with more competent assistants.
That's fine. That'll mean he leads the team to WC and sails off into the sunset. It will only become awkward if he misses the hints and reapplies for another term
-
Deep down I am convinced they could replace every one at NZR and that won't fix our coaching problems.
However on a more positive note I have done a scientific study of 2021 to 2022 and not only did the ABs have DMac but also a much higher % of mullets.
Correlation is not causation but nothing else seems to work.
Nb if Hansen thinks NZR was harmonious when he was there I wonder how he explains the RWC2019 result.
@nostrildamus said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
Deep down I am convinced they could replace every one at NZR and that won't fix our coaching problems.
However on a more positive note I have done a scientific study of 2021 to 2022 and not only did the ABs have DMac but also a much higher % of mullets.
Correlation is not causation but nothing else seems to work.
Nb if Hansen thinks NZR was harmonious when he was there I wonder how he explains the RWC2019 result.
England played a freakishly good game having prepared for 4 years to beat the ABs. If only it had been the final Eddie!
NZ hadn't played badly in 2019 (not brilliant mind). They beat the winners SA in the pool game, they overcame their bogey team Ireland comprehensively in the QFs. SF was one step too many for some of the older players and England were 100% prepared on how they had to play NZ.
It shouldn't be forgotten that SA squeaked past Wales in the SF. Tournament rugby is predominantly about fine margins and hoping you don't get cards, injuries and that luck is with you.
-
@Frank said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@reprobate said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
How dare someone leave people open to criticism in public eh Steve? Best you criticise them in public for that.
Your closed doors is how we got Foster in the first place. The hiring process was abysmal, ruled out all the good options deliberately so your mate could get the job. And the organisation, having previously wheeled out bullshit like 'coaches must have international experience' when it suited, then pick a guy without any head coach success in NZ, let alone inernationally.
Zero integrity.Yeah, it's ridiculous for Hansen say Foster's a good coach and call out some of the online abuse when everyone knows Foster's rubbish and deserves everything he gets, isn't it? Hansen's obviously clueless and it's not as if he's had any decent experience or success at international level so he's best ignored.
And as for Mo'unga praising Foster, what would he know about coaching quality? Has he ever been coached by anyone decent?
An alternate view is these guys might actually have more insight into the current problems than most other people - including rugby hacks - and the current problems in NZ Rugby might run a wee bit deeper than the coaching skills of one bloke. Bit bloody inconvenient, if that is the case, eh?
There are deeper problems, but getting rid of Foster is important. Both can be true.
It's of paramount important to some people. But if Foster's the problem, then what do you do when the solution you put in place doesn't work? Shrug your shoulders and say at least we tried something?
When you unpick the "Foster must go" argument and ask how many Tests you'd give a Foster-replacement to improve things (like the win percentage) before he too gets sacked, things get a bit more vague and/or complicated for some reason. Really can't think why if the quality of the coach is a key problem.
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Frank said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@reprobate said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
How dare someone leave people open to criticism in public eh Steve? Best you criticise them in public for that.
Your closed doors is how we got Foster in the first place. The hiring process was abysmal, ruled out all the good options deliberately so your mate could get the job. And the organisation, having previously wheeled out bullshit like 'coaches must have international experience' when it suited, then pick a guy without any head coach success in NZ, let alone inernationally.
Zero integrity.Yeah, it's ridiculous for Hansen say Foster's a good coach and call out some of the online abuse when everyone knows Foster's rubbish and deserves everything he gets, isn't it? Hansen's obviously clueless and it's not as if he's had any decent experience or success at international level so he's best ignored.
And as for Mo'unga praising Foster, what would he know about coaching quality? Has he ever been coached by anyone decent?
An alternate view is these guys might actually have more insight into the current problems than most other people - including rugby hacks - and the current problems in NZ Rugby might run a wee bit deeper than the coaching skills of one bloke. Bit bloody inconvenient, if that is the case, eh?
There are deeper problems, but getting rid of Foster is important. Both can be true.
It's of paramount important to some people. But if Foster's the problem, then what do you do when the solution you put in place doesn't work? Shrug your shoulders and say at least we tried something?
When you unpick the "Foster must go" argument and ask how many Tests you'd give a Foster-replacement to improve things (like the win percentage) before he too gets sacked, things get a bit more vague and/or complicated for some reason. Really can't think why if the quality of the coach is a key problem.
It will be interesting to see what effect, if any, Foster taking over the backs/attack remit has on the team. By all accounts, those in the 2015 team were very complimentary about him when he was an assistant coach and the ABs during 2015 to 2019 weren't bad at attacking I seem to recall.
Maybe some of the load will be lifted from him and he can concentrate on a specific role. Not all coaches make good head coaches.
-
Don't be distracted by the noise. Let's look at Foster's record as a coach and where the ABs are at the moment. That is all we have. That is the reality.
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
Deep down I am convinced they could replace every one at NZR and that won't fix our coaching problems.
However on a more positive note I have done a scientific study of 2021 to 2022 and not only did the ABs have DMac but also a much higher % of mullets.
Correlation is not causation but nothing else seems to work.
Nb if Hansen thinks NZR was harmonious when he was there I wonder how he explains the RWC2019 result.
England played a freakishly good game having prepared for 4 years to beat the ABs. If only it had been the final Eddie!
NZ hadn't played badly in 2019 (not brilliant mind). They beat the winners SA in the pool game, they overcame their bogey team Ireland comprehensively in the QFs. SF was one step too many for some of the older players and England were 100% prepared on how they had to play NZ.
It shouldn't be forgotten that SA squeaked past Wales in the SF. Tournament rugby is predominantly about fine margins and hoping you don't get cards, injuries and that luck is with you.
@stodders you make good points.
-
Don't be distracted by the noise. Let's look at Foster's record as a coach and where the ABs are at the moment. That is all we have. That is the reality.
@Old-Samurai-Jack Compare his record as a coach vs his record as a head coach.
I don't think he is a bad coach. The players speak about him glowingly when he is more hands on. The issue appears to be his role as head coach and how he is communicating his vision to his assistants who are tasked with the hands on implementation.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Frank said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@reprobate said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
How dare someone leave people open to criticism in public eh Steve? Best you criticise them in public for that.
Your closed doors is how we got Foster in the first place. The hiring process was abysmal, ruled out all the good options deliberately so your mate could get the job. And the organisation, having previously wheeled out bullshit like 'coaches must have international experience' when it suited, then pick a guy without any head coach success in NZ, let alone inernationally.
Zero integrity.Yeah, it's ridiculous for Hansen say Foster's a good coach and call out some of the online abuse when everyone knows Foster's rubbish and deserves everything he gets, isn't it? Hansen's obviously clueless and it's not as if he's had any decent experience or success at international level so he's best ignored.
And as for Mo'unga praising Foster, what would he know about coaching quality? Has he ever been coached by anyone decent?
An alternate view is these guys might actually have more insight into the current problems than most other people - including rugby hacks - and the current problems in NZ Rugby might run a wee bit deeper than the coaching skills of one bloke. Bit bloody inconvenient, if that is the case, eh?
There are deeper problems, but getting rid of Foster is important. Both can be true.
It's of paramount important to some people. But if Foster's the problem, then what do you do when the solution you put in place doesn't work? Shrug your shoulders and say at least we tried something?
When you unpick the "Foster must go" argument and ask how many Tests you'd give a Foster-replacement to improve things (like the win percentage) before he too gets sacked, things get a bit more vague and/or complicated for some reason. Really can't think why if the quality of the coach is a key problem.
It will be interesting to see what effect, if any, Foster taking over the backs/attack remit has on the team. By all accounts, those in the 2015 team were very complimentary about him when he was an assistant coach and the ABs during 2015 to 2019 weren't bad at attacking I seem to recall.
Maybe some of the load will be lifted from him and he can concentrate on a specific role. Not all coaches make good head coaches.
@stodders when did Wayne Smith leave ABs ? October 2017? It can take a while for a good team to slide ...
-
@reprobate said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
How dare someone leave people open to criticism in public eh Steve? Best you criticise them in public for that.
Your closed doors is how we got Foster in the first place. The hiring process was abysmal, ruled out all the good options deliberately so your mate could get the job. And the organisation, having previously wheeled out bullshit like 'coaches must have international experience' when it suited, then pick a guy without any head coach success in NZ, let alone inernationally.
Zero integrity.Yeah, it's ridiculous for Hansen say Foster's a good coach and call out some of the online abuse when everyone knows Foster's rubbish and deserves everything he gets, isn't it? Hansen's obviously clueless and it's not as if he's had any decent experience or success at international level so he's best ignored.
And as for Mo'unga praising Foster, what would he know about coaching quality? Has he ever been coached by anyone decent?
An alternate view is these guys might actually have more insight into the current problems than most other people - including rugby hacks - and the current problems in NZ Rugby might run a wee bit deeper than the coaching skills of one bloke. Bit bloody inconvenient, if that is the case, eh?
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@reprobate said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
How dare someone leave people open to criticism in public eh Steve? Best you criticise them in public for that.
Your closed doors is how we got Foster in the first place. The hiring process was abysmal, ruled out all the good options deliberately so your mate could get the job. And the organisation, having previously wheeled out bullshit like 'coaches must have international experience' when it suited, then pick a guy without any head coach success in NZ, let alone inernationally.
Zero integrity.Yeah, it's ridiculous for Hansen say Foster's a good coach and call out some of the online abuse when everyone knows Foster's rubbish and deserves everything he gets, isn't it? Hansen's obviously clueless and it's not as if he's had any decent experience or success at international level so he's best ignored.
And as for Mo'unga praising Foster, what would he know about coaching quality? Has he ever been coached by anyone decent?
An alternate view is these guys might actually have more insight into the current problems than most other people - including rugby hacks - and the current problems in NZ Rugby might run a wee bit deeper than the coaching skills of one bloke. Bit bloody inconvenient, if that is the case, eh?
Didn't say any of that, but keep up your efforts for the broken record award mate.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Frank said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@reprobate said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
How dare someone leave people open to criticism in public eh Steve? Best you criticise them in public for that.
Your closed doors is how we got Foster in the first place. The hiring process was abysmal, ruled out all the good options deliberately so your mate could get the job. And the organisation, having previously wheeled out bullshit like 'coaches must have international experience' when it suited, then pick a guy without any head coach success in NZ, let alone inernationally.
Zero integrity.Yeah, it's ridiculous for Hansen say Foster's a good coach and call out some of the online abuse when everyone knows Foster's rubbish and deserves everything he gets, isn't it? Hansen's obviously clueless and it's not as if he's had any decent experience or success at international level so he's best ignored.
And as for Mo'unga praising Foster, what would he know about coaching quality? Has he ever been coached by anyone decent?
An alternate view is these guys might actually have more insight into the current problems than most other people - including rugby hacks - and the current problems in NZ Rugby might run a wee bit deeper than the coaching skills of one bloke. Bit bloody inconvenient, if that is the case, eh?
There are deeper problems, but getting rid of Foster is important. Both can be true.
It's of paramount important to some people. But if Foster's the problem, then what do you do when the solution you put in place doesn't work? Shrug your shoulders and say at least we tried something?
Sounds more like an argument about Brexit.
Oh let's leave the EU! Ok, and go to what, exactly? Oh the Tories will work everything out. Ok!On the ABs, what can people do apart from demand player changes or coaching changes?
And of these two options how many untested star players do we have left?
Nobody seems to think there is one magical player not selected who will dramatically change the team's fortunes and I have not seen here a cogent and plausible reason we can replace the NZR. Go ahead, suggest.When you unpick the "Foster must go" argument and ask how many Tests you'd give a Foster-replacement to improve things (like the win percentage) before he too gets sacked, things get a bit more vague and/or complicated for some reason.
Really can't think why if the quality of the coach is a key problem.That is not unpicking, that is avoiding the real question, on what criteria was his contract extended? What are the KPIs that he is apparently hitting? He selected his assistant coaches, if the NZR don't think 2 (or 3?) performed, how is that not a reflection on his judgement?
So, false equivalence. Coach can be crap AND people can not want to give clear criteria, because they want to vent and be subjective!
OTOH, posters here have given criteria, the record % loss percentage, the records for loses in general, the supposedly weaker teams we played against, that we struggled against, and the slide in world rankings.
The argument against Foster is strong, his terrible win-loss record and the clear performance drop of his players and the quality of his excuses, or lack thereof, the only coach to face COVID-related issues, huh?
People don't set criteria because they want to complain and feel powerless to change things. They can still set criteria.Here is an easy one, a coaching record better than Foster's.
Loss number seven under his watch came after just 24 tests, a rapid rate compared to his predecessor, Sir Steve Hansen. It took 89 tests for Hansen to suffer seven losses, 53 for Sir Graham Henry, and 35 for John Hart.criteria:
So, not losing 7 tests in 24 overall would be a start. So close to a 75% average after 2 years. Too difficult?
Here is an easier one: not losing a series at home to a country we never lost a series at home before could be another one. OUT!
PLUS: A two year contract with clear KPI the public also know about. KPI not met, OUT!
AND: Responsibility for assistant coach selection and performance. If you lose half your assistant coaching team, for example. OUT! -
@stodders when did Wayne Smith leave ABs ? October 2017? It can take a while for a good team to slide ...
@nostrildamus said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@stodders when did Wayne Smith leave ABs ? October 2017? It can take a while for a good team to slide ...
Yep. Smith was brilliant at helping forge the right culture within the team.
When McCaw and Carter left and Nonu, Smith, Mealamu to an extent, some of the high standards they set didn't seem to be continued, or they dropped slightly within the team. But McCaw's leadership was all about training properly, preparing properly, executing properly.
Read's style of captaincy was a bit more laissez faire for me. McCaw wasn't a friend to the players (or didn't appear to be from the outside). He seemed more aloof. Read was more about the camaraderie and more in tune emotionally with the playing group.
Read was a brilliant deputy to McCaw. He led through deed. When he became Captain, I got the feeling that the standards set by McCaw were not maintained because Read wanted to do things his own way. Hansen didn't fill the gap that the senior leadership had been filling, and so over time standards eroded. But a winning habit is hard to break, and so the team won more than they possibly should have post-2015.
But once the losses began and doubts crept in, the drive for excellence and maintaining standards that was demanded by McCaw wasn't fully there anymore. The culture had morphed and didn't support it. And so, we are where we are at now. The players are still good enough, but the culture isn't conducive to get high quality performances out on a consistent basis.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Frank said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@reprobate said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
How dare someone leave people open to criticism in public eh Steve? Best you criticise them in public for that.
Your closed doors is how we got Foster in the first place. The hiring process was abysmal, ruled out all the good options deliberately so your mate could get the job. And the organisation, having previously wheeled out bullshit like 'coaches must have international experience' when it suited, then pick a guy without any head coach success in NZ, let alone inernationally.
Zero integrity.Yeah, it's ridiculous for Hansen say Foster's a good coach and call out some of the online abuse when everyone knows Foster's rubbish and deserves everything he gets, isn't it? Hansen's obviously clueless and it's not as if he's had any decent experience or success at international level so he's best ignored.
And as for Mo'unga praising Foster, what would he know about coaching quality? Has he ever been coached by anyone decent?
An alternate view is these guys might actually have more insight into the current problems than most other people - including rugby hacks - and the current problems in NZ Rugby might run a wee bit deeper than the coaching skills of one bloke. Bit bloody inconvenient, if that is the case, eh?
There are deeper problems, but getting rid of Foster is important. Both can be true.
It's of paramount important to some people. But if Foster's the problem, then what do you do when the solution you put in place doesn't work? Shrug your shoulders and say at least we tried something?
Sounds more like an argument about Brexit.
Oh let's leave the EU! Ok, and go to what, exactly? Oh the Tories will work everything out. Ok!On the ABs, what can people do apart from demand player changes or coaching changes?
And of these two options how many untested star players do we have left?
Nobody seems to think there is one magical player not selected who will dramatically change the team's fortunes and I have not seen here a cogent and plausible reason we can replace the NZR. Go ahead, suggest.When you unpick the "Foster must go" argument and ask how many Tests you'd give a Foster-replacement to improve things (like the win percentage) before he too gets sacked, things get a bit more vague and/or complicated for some reason.
Really can't think why if the quality of the coach is a key problem.That is not unpicking, that is avoiding the real question, on what criteria was his contract extended? What are the KPIs that he is apparently hitting? He selected his assistant coaches, if the NZR don't think 2 (or 3?) performed, how is that not a reflection on his judgement?
So, false equivalence. Coach can be crap AND people can not want to give clear criteria, because they want to vent and be subjective!
OTOH, posters here have given criteria, the record % loss percentage, the records for loses in general, the supposedly weaker teams we played against, that we struggled against, and the slide in world rankings.
The argument against Foster is strong, his terrible win-loss record and the clear performance drop of his players and the quality of his excuses, or lack thereof, the only coach to face COVID-related issues, huh?
People don't set criteria because they want to complain and feel powerless to change things. They can still set criteria.Here is an easy one, a coaching record better than Foster's.
Loss number seven under his watch came after just 24 tests, a rapid rate compared to his predecessor, Sir Steve Hansen. It took 89 tests for Hansen to suffer seven losses, 53 for Sir Graham Henry, and 35 for John Hart.criteria:
So, not losing 7 tests in 24 overall would be a start. So close to a 75% average after 2 years. Too difficult?
Here is an easier one: not losing a series at home to a country we never lost a series at home before could be another one. OUT!
PLUS: A two year contract with clear KPI the public also know about. KPI not met, OUT!
AND: Responsibility for assistant coach selection and performance. If you lose half your assistant coaching team, for example. OUT!@nostrildamus said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Frank said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@reprobate said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
How dare someone leave people open to criticism in public eh Steve? Best you criticise them in public for that.
Your closed doors is how we got Foster in the first place. The hiring process was abysmal, ruled out all the good options deliberately so your mate could get the job. And the organisation, having previously wheeled out bullshit like 'coaches must have international experience' when it suited, then pick a guy without any head coach success in NZ, let alone inernationally.
Zero integrity.Yeah, it's ridiculous for Hansen say Foster's a good coach and call out some of the online abuse when everyone knows Foster's rubbish and deserves everything he gets, isn't it? Hansen's obviously clueless and it's not as if he's had any decent experience or success at international level so he's best ignored.
And as for Mo'unga praising Foster, what would he know about coaching quality? Has he ever been coached by anyone decent?
An alternate view is these guys might actually have more insight into the current problems than most other people - including rugby hacks - and the current problems in NZ Rugby might run a wee bit deeper than the coaching skills of one bloke. Bit bloody inconvenient, if that is the case, eh?
There are deeper problems, but getting rid of Foster is important. Both can be true.
It's of paramount important to some people. But if Foster's the problem, then what do you do when the solution you put in place doesn't work? Shrug your shoulders and say at least we tried something?
Sounds more like an argument about Brexit.
Oh let's leave the EU! Ok, and go to what, exactly? Oh the Tories will work everything out. Ok!On the ABs, what can people do apart from demand player changes or coaching changes?
And of these two options how many untested star players do we have left?
Nobody seems to think there is one magical player not selected who will dramatically change the team's fortunes and I have not seen here a cogent and plausible reason we can replace the NZR. Go ahead, suggest.When you unpick the "Foster must go" argument and ask how many Tests you'd give a Foster-replacement to improve things (like the win percentage) before he too gets sacked, things get a bit more vague and/or complicated for some reason.
Really can't think why if the quality of the coach is a key problem.That is not unpicking, that is avoiding the real question, on what criteria was his contract extended? What are the KPIs that he is apparently hitting? He selected his assistant coaches, if the NZR don't think 2 (or 3?) performed, how is that not a reflection on his judgement?
So, false equivalence. Coach can be crap AND people can not want to give clear criteria, because they want to vent and be subjective!
OTOH, posters here have given criteria, the record % loss percentage, the records for loses in general, the supposedly weaker teams we played against, that we struggled against, and the slide in world rankings.
The argument against Foster is strong, his terrible win-loss record and the clear performance drop of his players and the quality of his excuses, or lack thereof, the only coach to face COVID-related issues, huh?
People don't set criteria because they want to complain and feel powerless to change things. They can still set criteria.Here is an easy one, a coaching record better than Foster's.
Loss number seven under his watch came after just 24 tests, a rapid rate compared to his predecessor, Sir Steve Hansen. It took 89 tests for Hansen to suffer seven losses, 53 for Sir Graham Henry, and 35 for John Hart.criteria:
So, not losing 7 tests in 24 overall would be a start. So close to a 75% average after 2 years. Too difficult?
Here is an easier one: not losing a series at home to a country we never lost a series at home before could be another one. OUT!
PLUS: A two year contract with clear KPI the public also know about. KPI not met, OUT!
AND: Responsibility for assistant coach selection and performance. If you lose half your assistant coaching team, for example. OUT!Not to make this about Brexit, but just watch the EU over the next couple of years. It is already fracturing as nations with different needs pull in different directions.
Similar situation with various stakeholders of NZ rugby
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Frank said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@reprobate said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
How dare someone leave people open to criticism in public eh Steve? Best you criticise them in public for that.
Your closed doors is how we got Foster in the first place. The hiring process was abysmal, ruled out all the good options deliberately so your mate could get the job. And the organisation, having previously wheeled out bullshit like 'coaches must have international experience' when it suited, then pick a guy without any head coach success in NZ, let alone inernationally.
Zero integrity.Yeah, it's ridiculous for Hansen say Foster's a good coach and call out some of the online abuse when everyone knows Foster's rubbish and deserves everything he gets, isn't it? Hansen's obviously clueless and it's not as if he's had any decent experience or success at international level so he's best ignored.
And as for Mo'unga praising Foster, what would he know about coaching quality? Has he ever been coached by anyone decent?
An alternate view is these guys might actually have more insight into the current problems than most other people - including rugby hacks - and the current problems in NZ Rugby might run a wee bit deeper than the coaching skills of one bloke. Bit bloody inconvenient, if that is the case, eh?
There are deeper problems, but getting rid of Foster is important. Both can be true.
It's of paramount important to some people. But if Foster's the problem, then what do you do when the solution you put in place doesn't work? Shrug your shoulders and say at least we tried something?
When you unpick the "Foster must go" argument and ask how many Tests you'd give a Foster-replacement to improve things (like the win percentage) before he too gets sacked, things get a bit more vague and/or complicated for some reason. Really can't think why if the quality of the coach is a key problem.
It will be interesting to see what effect, if any, Foster taking over the backs/attack remit has on the team. By all accounts, those in the 2015 team were very complimentary about him when he was an assistant coach and the ABs during 2015 to 2019 weren't bad at attacking I seem to recall.
Maybe some of the load will be lifted from him and he can concentrate on a specific role. Not all coaches make good head coaches.
@stodders said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Frank said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@reprobate said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
How dare someone leave people open to criticism in public eh Steve? Best you criticise them in public for that.
Your closed doors is how we got Foster in the first place. The hiring process was abysmal, ruled out all the good options deliberately so your mate could get the job. And the organisation, having previously wheeled out bullshit like 'coaches must have international experience' when it suited, then pick a guy without any head coach success in NZ, let alone inernationally.
Zero integrity.Yeah, it's ridiculous for Hansen say Foster's a good coach and call out some of the online abuse when everyone knows Foster's rubbish and deserves everything he gets, isn't it? Hansen's obviously clueless and it's not as if he's had any decent experience or success at international level so he's best ignored.
And as for Mo'unga praising Foster, what would he know about coaching quality? Has he ever been coached by anyone decent?
An alternate view is these guys might actually have more insight into the current problems than most other people - including rugby hacks - and the current problems in NZ Rugby might run a wee bit deeper than the coaching skills of one bloke. Bit bloody inconvenient, if that is the case, eh?
There are deeper problems, but getting rid of Foster is important. Both can be true.
It's of paramount important to some people. But if Foster's the problem, then what do you do when the solution you put in place doesn't work? Shrug your shoulders and say at least we tried something?
When you unpick the "Foster must go" argument and ask how many Tests you'd give a Foster-replacement to improve things (like the win percentage) before he too gets sacked, things get a bit more vague and/or complicated for some reason. Really can't think why if the quality of the coach is a key problem.
It will be interesting to see what effect, if any, Foster taking over the backs/attack remit has on the team. By all accounts, those in the 2015 team were very complimentary about him when he was an assistant coach and the ABs during 2015 to 2019 weren't bad at attacking I seem to recall.
Maybe some of the load will be lifted from him and he can concentrate on a specific role. Not all coaches make good head coaches.
Well, I hope so. But unless there's some improvement in the RC & EOYT, NZR needs to put some contingency plans into action and change out the coaching team.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@reprobate said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
How dare someone leave people open to criticism in public eh Steve? Best you criticise them in public for that.
Your closed doors is how we got Foster in the first place. The hiring process was abysmal, ruled out all the good options deliberately so your mate could get the job. And the organisation, having previously wheeled out bullshit like 'coaches must have international experience' when it suited, then pick a guy without any head coach success in NZ, let alone inernationally.
Zero integrity.Yeah, it's ridiculous for Hansen say Foster's a good coach and call out some of the online abuse when everyone knows Foster's rubbish and deserves everything he gets, isn't it? Hansen's obviously clueless and it's not as if he's had any decent experience or success at international level so he's best ignored.
And as for Mo'unga praising Foster, what would he know about coaching quality? Has he ever been coached by anyone decent?
An alternate view is these guys might actually have more insight into the current problems than most other people - including rugby hacks - and the current problems in NZ Rugby might run a wee bit deeper than the coaching skills of one bloke. Bit bloody inconvenient, if that is the case, eh?
Didn't say any of that, but keep up your efforts for the broken record award mate.
@reprobate said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@reprobate said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
How dare someone leave people open to criticism in public eh Steve? Best you criticise them in public for that.
Your closed doors is how we got Foster in the first place. The hiring process was abysmal, ruled out all the good options deliberately so your mate could get the job. And the organisation, having previously wheeled out bullshit like 'coaches must have international experience' when it suited, then pick a guy without any head coach success in NZ, let alone inernationally.
Zero integrity.Yeah, it's ridiculous for Hansen say Foster's a good coach and call out some of the online abuse when everyone knows Foster's rubbish and deserves everything he gets, isn't it? Hansen's obviously clueless and it's not as if he's had any decent experience or success at international level so he's best ignored.
And as for Mo'unga praising Foster, what would he know about coaching quality? Has he ever been coached by anyone decent?
An alternate view is these guys might actually have more insight into the current problems than most other people - including rugby hacks - and the current problems in NZ Rugby might run a wee bit deeper than the coaching skills of one bloke. Bit bloody inconvenient, if that is the case, eh?
Didn't say any of that
How dare someone leave people open to criticism in public eh Steve? Best you criticise them in public for that.
Oh sorry, I though you were referring to Hansen. Must have been another "Steve". Who were you referring to?
-
@BerniesCorner said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
Been an avid AB fan for years. Been so nervous at times with a close result, so proud of such a great team from a small country.
The current player talent available is pretty good.
This is the first time ever I don't care if we lose, in fact, it would be good if we did lose again.
Getting a couple of good assistants is probably going to prolong the never ending saga of mediocrity.
How can the national side not have the best management team that is available. Frustration.I honestly belief this team with a change in management could start firing consistently within a month
I found your views distasteful TBH. Personally, I'm not anti-Foster the man, but anti-his results. If the changes just made lead to well-constructed victories, I'll have no problem him continuing. If he wins, and wins well, he can stay. If we keep playing rubbish rugby, then he can go.
But that is different for me then saying I don't care, I hope we lose.
The only coach I couldn't stand in the end was John Mitchell, but Foster seems like a decent bloke.
@Billy-Tell Mitch was a monumental bellend but he won two Tri-Nations and brought back the Bled. He also unearthed a wealth of talent, many of whom when on to win World Cups.
-
@pakman so when did he identify these issues or work ons?
Just this year? Last year? 2020? Earlier?
So you identify the issue, what has been done about them?
Which presents another possible issues...
If only identified this year, really, WTF!
Last year, geez, but nothing changed this year?
2020, ah ok, cool, but, er whats changed?
Earlier, seriously, WTF have you been doing since circa 2017/2018?If these problems exist in the #1 team we have, they will most certainly exist in the levels below, but maybe not as obvious due to the lower intensity and quality.
But, as National coach, given the rest of our pro teams are answerable to NZR, surely getting heads together and working on these issues is key?
I mean when the AB pack was at its peak, Mike Cron was doing workshops all over the place upskilling our players/coaches getting everyone on the same page (which has its own issues, but thats another conversation)
@taniwharugby We've had those issues since the EOYT 2016.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Frank said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@reprobate said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
How dare someone leave people open to criticism in public eh Steve? Best you criticise them in public for that.
Your closed doors is how we got Foster in the first place. The hiring process was abysmal, ruled out all the good options deliberately so your mate could get the job. And the organisation, having previously wheeled out bullshit like 'coaches must have international experience' when it suited, then pick a guy without any head coach success in NZ, let alone inernationally.
Zero integrity.Yeah, it's ridiculous for Hansen say Foster's a good coach and call out some of the online abuse when everyone knows Foster's rubbish and deserves everything he gets, isn't it? Hansen's obviously clueless and it's not as if he's had any decent experience or success at international level so he's best ignored.
And as for Mo'unga praising Foster, what would he know about coaching quality? Has he ever been coached by anyone decent?
An alternate view is these guys might actually have more insight into the current problems than most other people - including rugby hacks - and the current problems in NZ Rugby might run a wee bit deeper than the coaching skills of one bloke. Bit bloody inconvenient, if that is the case, eh?
There are deeper problems, but getting rid of Foster is important. Both can be true.
It's of paramount important to some people. But if Foster's the problem, then what do you do when the solution you put in place doesn't work? Shrug your shoulders and say at least we tried something?
Sounds more like an argument about Brexit.
Oh let's leave the EU! Ok, and go to what, exactly? Oh the Tories will work everything out. Ok!On the ABs, what can people do apart from demand player changes or coaching changes?
And of these two options how many untested star players do we have left?
Nobody seems to think there is one magical player not selected who will dramatically change the team's fortunes and I have not seen here a cogent and plausible reason we can replace the NZR. Go ahead, suggest.When you unpick the "Foster must go" argument and ask how many Tests you'd give a Foster-replacement to improve things (like the win percentage) before he too gets sacked, things get a bit more vague and/or complicated for some reason.
Really can't think why if the quality of the coach is a key problem.That is not unpicking, that is avoiding the real question, on what criteria was his contract extended? What are the KPIs that he is apparently hitting? He selected his assistant coaches, if the NZR don't think 2 (or 3?) performed, how is that not a reflection on his judgement?
So, false equivalence. Coach can be crap AND people can not want to give clear criteria, because they want to vent and be subjective!
OTOH, posters here have given criteria, the record % loss percentage, the records for loses in general, the supposedly weaker teams we played against, that we struggled against, and the slide in world rankings.
The argument against Foster is strong, his terrible win-loss record and the clear performance drop of his players and the quality of his excuses, or lack thereof, the only coach to face COVID-related issues, huh?
People don't set criteria because they want to complain and feel powerless to change things. They can still set criteria.Here is an easy one, a coaching record better than Foster's.
Loss number seven under his watch came after just 24 tests, a rapid rate compared to his predecessor, Sir Steve Hansen. It took 89 tests for Hansen to suffer seven losses, 53 for Sir Graham Henry, and 35 for John Hart.criteria:
So, not losing 7 tests in 24 overall would be a start. So close to a 75% average after 2 years. Too difficult?
Here is an easier one: not losing a series at home to a country we never lost a series at home before could be another one. OUT!
PLUS: A two year contract with clear KPI the public also know about. KPI not met, OUT!
AND: Responsibility for assistant coach selection and performance. If you lose half your assistant coaching team, for example. OUT!@nostrildamus said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
Sounds more like an argument about Brexit.
Oh let's leave the EU! Ok, and go to what, exactly? Oh the Tories will work everything out. Ok!Seriously?
On the ABs, what can people do apart from demand player changes or coaching changes?
Apply some clear-headed thinking for a start. At the moment much of the comment in the media is akin to some sort of emotional witch-hunt.
That is not unpicking, that is avoiding the real question, on what criteria was his contract extended? What are the KPIs that he is apparently hitting? He selected his assistant coaches, if the NZR don't think 2 (or 3?) performed, how is that not a reflection on his judgement?
That's not the real question in the real world, not even remotely. You are looking into what happened in the past when we need to ask how we improve things going forward. The real question is would a new coach do any better and how long do we give him to prove himself & what happens if there's no improvement. What do we do then?
So, not losing 7 tests in 24 overall would be a start. So close to a 75% average after 2 years. Too difficult?
Which is what Foster pretty much achieved in his first 2 years before he was re-appointed. What happens if the new bloke does the same? Sack him, after he loses 4/5 games like people want Foster sacked, or keep him until the end of his contract to give him a chance of hitting the 75% target?
Here is an easier one: not losing a series at home to a country we never lost a series at home before could be another one. OUT!
Unworkable. If Foster had gone after the poor 2021 EOYT results and, say, Robertson had taken over and lost to Ireland in his first 2 tests in charge, Robertson would be sacked after 2 Tests and you'd have to get (yet) another coach in to do the 3rd Test.
AND: Responsibility for assistant coach selection and performance. If you lose half your assistant coaching team, for example. OUT!
And by doing that you'd actually take away any responsibility for assistant coach selection and performance. If his assistants were not performing and he wanted to cut them loose to improve things, he'd have a disincentive to do that as he'd be given the sack for not keeping his assistants. Worse position than we are in now.
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
Deep down I am convinced they could replace every one at NZR and that won't fix our coaching problems.
However on a more positive note I have done a scientific study of 2021 to 2022 and not only did the ABs have DMac but also a much higher % of mullets.
Correlation is not causation but nothing else seems to work.
Nb if Hansen thinks NZR was harmonious when he was there I wonder how he explains the RWC2019 result.
England played a freakishly good game having prepared for 4 years to beat the ABs. If only it had been the final Eddie!
NZ hadn't played badly in 2019 (not brilliant mind). They beat the winners SA in the pool game, they overcame their bogey team Ireland comprehensively in the QFs. SF was one step too many for some of the older players and England were 100% prepared on how they had to play NZ.
It shouldn't be forgotten that SA squeaked past Wales in the SF. Tournament rugby is predominantly about fine margins and hoping you don't get cards, injuries and that luck is with you.
@stodders Hansen still hadn't played his best side until the SF. Everything was built around mobile forwards and SBW. Most of which hadn't played as a unit over a good chunk of time because SH kept changing it. I mean, Ryan Crotty and ALB were doing ok and could have been better with more time and then he dumps Bender. He had lost the plot completely by 2019 which started EOYT 2016.
