Foster, Robertson etc
-
About players backing Foster. Maybe that's because he's a nice guy and a good backs coach, and not necessarily about him being a good head coach? There may be aspects of his coaching that are really good in addition to the ones that are not good at all. Who knows? We don't know what the players are really thinking about this and won't know until their career is completely over.
I wonder what Robertson's relationship with Foster is like? Could they work together, for example, with Razor becoming head coach and Foster stepping back and going back to the assistant role? Like Tana at the Blues? I wonder whether both would agree to that?
@Stargazer said in Foster:
About players backing Foster. Maybe that's because he's a nice guy and a good backs coach, and not necessarily about him being a good head coach?
Surely the players are only ones that can tell you the reasons, and asking us in a forum is not really sensible. I think to get any answers we are better to listen to players and what they say, and not just try and make their words meet our thoughts?
I actually assume the players are saying what they think, as I have no reason to assume they are liars.
I have seen nothing to indicate that Razor would want to work with or without Foster, but suspect you may have to work through some egos etc to get there. (only a guess) -
So if bottom line is scoreboard and we had played weaker teams than we did and won does that make things OK?
Of cause not. That would be silly. We never judge our success based on playing Fiji Or Tonga.
Fact (not excuse) is that we have had to adjust quickly at a time where we have had to play three teams that are on a high, two of which aren't usually that good and play them all at their home grounds as well. All at a time when we are looking for new players that can play the type of game that will beat them. Were we (Foster) smart enough to see them coming? Nope. But the key is making those adjustments and coming out on top.
So he deserves credit for making an adjustment, later rather than sooner. Or was this forced on him. It begs the question why he did not understand the problem we were having with the pack three years ago or even more since he’s been involved with the ABs longer. That was the source of our problems. You agree that he was not smart enough so what is changed to say that he can lead us moving forward? One game?
Also what about his substitutions yesterday. I thought RM was having a pretty useful game and not sure why he had to bring on BB who could have lost the game for us. He subbed for Clark right and hard to tell but I assume Jordie went to wing? Perhaps it was a dual role but I still don’t understand it. Doubt it was because RM was fatigued so why change something that was working?
To a lesser extent, because it was late in the game, why was Rico subbed? He obviously looked pissed at the decision and rightly so. Why did not ST play every game of the Irish series? This is questioning his ability to coach and his decision making. Maybe there are reasons that this simpleton does not understand :-).
So he deserves credit for making an adjustment, later rather than sooner. Or was this forced on him. It begs the question why he did not understand the problem we were having with the pack three years ago or even more since he’s been involved with the ABs longer. That was the source of our problems.
Maybe he did/does understand but, like other struggling coaches, was met whole raft of issues outside of his control: retirements from the AB team that existed when he first joined the coaching staff, injuries, talent not being nurtured (Akira), poor development planning (see 12/13). Another coach may have done better. Who knows?
You agree that he was not smart enough so what is changed to say that he can lead us moving forward? One game?
Some of the players he's developed are starting to come right (see Conrad Smith's comments) fresh eyes on the coaching team, players returning from injury. But I agree 100% with you that one game is not enough to show the corner has been turned. We'e been here before.
-
So if bottom line is scoreboard and we had played weaker teams than we did and won does that make things OK?
Of cause not. That would be silly. We never judge our success based on playing Fiji Or Tonga.
Fact (not excuse) is that we have had to adjust quickly at a time where we have had to play three teams that are on a high, two of which aren't usually that good and play them all at their home grounds as well. All at a time when we are looking for new players that can play the type of game that will beat them. Were we (Foster) smart enough to see them coming? Nope. But the key is making those adjustments and coming out on top.
So he deserves credit for making an adjustment, later rather than sooner. Or was this forced on him. It begs the question why he did not understand the problem we were having with the pack three years ago or even more since he’s been involved with the ABs longer. That was the source of our problems. You agree that he was not smart enough so what is changed to say that he can lead us moving forward? One game?
Also what about his substitutions yesterday. I thought RM was having a pretty useful game and not sure why he had to bring on BB who could have lost the game for us. He subbed for Clark right and hard to tell but I assume Jordie went to wing? Perhaps it was a dual role but I still don’t understand it. Doubt it was because RM was fatigued so why change something that was working?
To a lesser extent, because it was late in the game, why was Rico subbed? He obviously looked pissed at the decision and rightly so. Why did not ST play every game of the Irish series? This is questioning his ability to coach and his decision making. Maybe there are reasons that this simpleton does not understand :-).
Also what about his substitutions yesterday. I thought RM was having a pretty useful game and not sure why he had to bring on BB who could have lost the game for us. He subbed for Clark right and hard to tell but I assume Jordie went to wing? Perhaps it was a dual role but I still don’t understand it. Doubt it was because RM was fatigued so why change something that was working?
To a lesser extent, because it was late in the game, why was Rico subbed? He obviously looked pissed at the decision and rightly so.I thought they did a fairly clever bit of subbing. Made a much better job of it than the Red Card debacle against Ireland.
When BB was YCd there was a tactical sub of Tupaea for Cane. Tupaea was strong enough to pack at blindside in the scrum and hold that side (I think Ardie went to open and Akira to 8 ) QT looked like he had practicised there in a contingency role.
This also meant that QT could use his fresh pace to cover the back and 'be everywhere'.
As soon as BB came back, someone else had to go and it was Rieko for Vai'i meaning QT could go full time into the backs and Scooter to 6 (which proved very effective)
Yes, it seemed odd that it was Rieko instead of Havili but at that stage I guess that the feeling was that we needed exit options not wings.BTW Mounga stayed on all game.
-
@Stargazer said in Foster:
About players backing Foster. Maybe that's because he's a nice guy and a good backs coach, and not necessarily about him being a good head coach?
Surely the players are only ones that can tell you the reasons, and asking us in a forum is not really sensible. I think to get any answers we are better to listen to players and what they say, and not just try and make their words meet our thoughts?
I actually assume the players are saying what they think, as I have no reason to assume they are liars.
I have seen nothing to indicate that Razor would want to work with or without Foster, but suspect you may have to work through some egos etc to get there. (only a guess) -
Also what about his substitutions yesterday. I thought RM was having a pretty useful game and not sure why he had to bring on BB who could have lost the game for us. He subbed for Clark right and hard to tell but I assume Jordie went to wing? Perhaps it was a dual role but I still don’t understand it. Doubt it was because RM was fatigued so why change something that was working?
To a lesser extent, because it was late in the game, why was Rico subbed? He obviously looked pissed at the decision and rightly so.I thought they did a fairly clever bit of subbing. Made a much better job of it than the Red Card debacle against Ireland.
When BB was YCd there was a tactical sub of Tupaea for Cane. Tupaea was strong enough to pack at blindside in the scrum and hold that side (I think Ardie went to open and Akira to 8 ) QT looked like he had practicised there in a contingency role.
This also meant that QT could use his fresh pace to cover the back and 'be everywhere'.
As soon as BB came back, someone else had to go and it was Rieko for Vai'i meaning QT could go full time into the backs and Scooter to 6 (which proved very effective)
Yes, it seemed odd that it was Rieko instead of Havili but at that stage I guess that the feeling was that we needed exit options not wings.BTW Mounga stayed on all game.
-
Also what about his substitutions yesterday. I thought RM was having a pretty useful game and not sure why he had to bring on BB who could have lost the game for us. He subbed for Clark right and hard to tell but I assume Jordie went to wing? Perhaps it was a dual role but I still don’t understand it. Doubt it was because RM was fatigued so why change something that was working?
To a lesser extent, because it was late in the game, why was Rico subbed? He obviously looked pissed at the decision and rightly so.I thought they did a fairly clever bit of subbing. Made a much better job of it than the Red Card debacle against Ireland.
When BB was YCd there was a tactical sub of Tupaea for Cane. Tupaea was strong enough to pack at blindside in the scrum and hold that side (I think Ardie went to open and Akira to 8 ) QT looked like he had practicised there in a contingency role.
This also meant that QT could use his fresh pace to cover the back and 'be everywhere'.
As soon as BB came back, someone else had to go and it was Rieko for Vai'i meaning QT could go full time into the backs and Scooter to 6 (which proved very effective)
Yes, it seemed odd that it was Rieko instead of Havili but at that stage I guess that the feeling was that we needed exit options not wings.BTW Mounga stayed on all game.
-
-
@WillieTheWaiter said in Foster:
But. Mark Robinson has also showed and is showing himself to be a poor executive. So, I have no idea what will happen. But I have little doubt if the can is kicked down the road, based on hope his new assistants can drag him upwards - rather than his proven body of work - we will probably just be back here in about December, and then if kicked further, again back here in abut about July.
got a work colleague who has a mate who works in a large venture capitalist firm in the UK.
He was telling him they had a big session set up in London where they were presenting an investment plan to Robinson - (had a few interesting ideas such as setting up was a structure where 'marquee' players would be loaned to teams around the world.. )
anyway, this session - full of some pretty senior execs with global involvement in multiple sports.. Robinson turned up 30 mins late and walked in wearing shorts and a t shirt..
he just seems to miss the mark as the leader of a supposed world leading sports organisation - I really feel like there needs to be some overseas experience brought into NZR from maybe another 'larger' sport to help grow the brand. I know that firm mentioned above were pretty scathing of the AB's social media game.. and you certainly wouldn't say their comms team isn't anything more than average..
Time to stop promoting from within and spread the net a bit widerYou got a colleague who has a mate who work in a large venture capitalist firm??
That is the best opening sentence for ignoring a post I have ever read lol.
Bit like my cousin who knows the the friend of the sister of Sam whitelock or someone??? :beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes: :beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes: :beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes:@WillieTheWaiter said in Foster:
But. Mark Robinson has also showed and is showing himself to be a poor executive. So, I have no idea what will happen. But I have little doubt if the can is kicked down the road, based on hope his new assistants can drag him upwards - rather than his proven body of work - we will probably just be back here in about December, and then if kicked further, again back here in abut about July.
got a work colleague who has a mate who works in a large venture capitalist firm in the UK.
He was telling him they had a big session set up in London where they were presenting an investment plan to Robinson - (had a few interesting ideas such as setting up was a structure where 'marquee' players would be loaned to teams around the world.. )
anyway, this session - full of some pretty senior execs with global involvement in multiple sports.. Robinson turned up 30 mins late and walked in wearing shorts and a t shirt..
he just seems to miss the mark as the leader of a supposed world leading sports organisation - I really feel like there needs to be some overseas experience brought into NZR from maybe another 'larger' sport to help grow the brand. I know that firm mentioned above were pretty scathing of the AB's social media game.. and you certainly wouldn't say their comms team isn't anything more than average..
Time to stop promoting from within and spread the net a bit widerYou got a colleague who has a mate who work in a large venture capitalist firm??
That is the best opening sentence for ignoring a post I have ever read lol.
Bit like my cousin who knows the the friend of the sister of Sam whitelock or someone??? :beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes: :beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes: :beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes:sheesh you don't come to the fern for hard facts do ya!
-
-
Regardless or whether you think Fozzie should be there or not, one thing is sure, he has been treated pretty shabbily by NZR. Would a new coach want to take over?
-
Regardless or whether you think Fozzie should be there or not, one thing is sure, he has been treated pretty shabbily by NZR. Would a new coach want to take over?
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Foster:
Regardless or whether you think Fozzie should be there or not, one thing is sure, he has been treated pretty shabbily by NZR. Would a new coach want to take over?
Totally Robinson should be first to the chop, he was pat of the stupid initial appointment, then the signing before NH tour 'because otherwise it's too mean not to' appears to be his idea/recommendation to the board
-
Plumtree will be concerned if the forwards continue to improve with Ryan in charge. He was really rated not that long again.
Plumtree will be concerned if the forwards continue to improve with Ryan in charge. He was really rated not that long again.
By who? (apart from Foster). Ryan and Coventry have been the top NZ forwards coaches for sometime and would have sat ahead of Plumtree in pecking order (if available).
Funny if he really was the weak link as part of his reputation came from being hired by Joe Schmidt for Ireland's forwards.
-
Did anyone here or in NZ in general (apart from Hanson and the geniuses at the NZRFU) actually want Foster in charge? I could get it if we'd won the RWC but it ended in a debacle. Having been a part of that debacle, how could anyone think he was the man to rebuild and get things back on track? If that was obvious to this gaggle of tards on TSF, then wtf were the decision makers smoking? Is it that difficult to remove oneself from that bubble?
-
Did anyone here or in NZ in general (apart from Hanson and the geniuses at the NZRFU) actually want Foster in charge? I could get it if we'd won the RWC but it ended in a debacle. Having been a part of that debacle, how could anyone think he was the man to rebuild and get things back on track? If that was obvious to this gaggle of tards on TSF, then wtf were the decision makers smoking? Is it that difficult to remove oneself from that bubble?
-
Plumtree will be concerned if the forwards continue to improve with Ryan in charge. He was really rated not that long again.
By who? (apart from Foster). Ryan and Coventry have been the top NZ forwards coaches for sometime and would have sat ahead of Plumtree in pecking order (if available).
Funny if he really was the weak link as part of his reputation came from being hired by Joe Schmidt for Ireland's forwards.
Plumtree will be concerned if the forwards continue to improve with Ryan in charge. He was really rated not that long again.
By who? (apart from Foster). Ryan and Coventry have been the top NZ forwards coaches for sometime and would have sat ahead of Plumtree in pecking order (if available).
Funny if he really was the weak link as part of his reputation came from being hired by Joe Schmidt for Ireland's forwards.
OK. I thought he was rated highly. (Not now of course) Esp as an assistant in charge of the forwards. And he did get the AB assistants job so more than Foster must have rated him. He also got the Cane's head coach job although that might not be saying much.
Re Schmidt. He appointed him so he must have been rated before then
I wonder if he has an issue dealing with players. As Umaga mentioned.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/archive/national-news/35183/Umaga-sticks-the-boot-in
Umaga also tackles respected coaches John Plumtree and Bryan Williams, saying Plumtree enjoyed humiliating players in front of teammates and that Williams was not "up to speed" with the modern game.
-
Did anyone here or in NZ in general (apart from Hanson and the geniuses at the NZRFU) actually want Foster in charge? I could get it if we'd won the RWC but it ended in a debacle. Having been a part of that debacle, how could anyone think he was the man to rebuild and get things back on track? If that was obvious to this gaggle of tards on TSF, then wtf were the decision makers smoking? Is it that difficult to remove oneself from that bubble?
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Foster:
Did anyone here or in NZ in general (apart from Hanson and the geniuses at the NZRFU) actually want Foster in charge? I could get it if we'd won the RWC but it ended in a debacle. Having been a part of that debacle, how could anyone think he was the man to rebuild and get things back on track? If that was obvious to this gaggle of tards on TSF, then wtf were the decision makers smoking? Is it that difficult to remove oneself from that bubble?
What made me laugh was apparently Robertson got stumped on one question by the headmaster Graham Henry during the interview and was judged to be "unprepared", whereas, no doubt, Foster gave some good answers. Typical conservative as fuck NZ old school rugby thinkers and a resistance to change with a suspicion of unconventional thinkers like Robertson. Let's judge you on an interview.
Never mind the actual fuckin results of the two candidates.
-
Plumtree will be concerned if the forwards continue to improve with Ryan in charge. He was really rated not that long again.
By who? (apart from Foster). Ryan and Coventry have been the top NZ forwards coaches for sometime and would have sat ahead of Plumtree in pecking order (if available).
Funny if he really was the weak link as part of his reputation came from being hired by Joe Schmidt for Ireland's forwards.
OK. I thought he was rated highly. (Not now of course) Esp as an assistant in charge of the forwards. And he did get the AB assistants job so more than Foster must have rated him. He also got the Cane's head coach job although that might not be saying much.
Re Schmidt. He appointed him so he must have been rated before then
I wonder if he has an issue dealing with players. As Umaga mentioned.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/archive/national-news/35183/Umaga-sticks-the-boot-in
Umaga also tackles respected coaches John Plumtree and Bryan Williams, saying Plumtree enjoyed humiliating players in front of teammates and that Williams was not "up to speed" with the modern game.
-
Plumtree will be concerned if the forwards continue to improve with Ryan in charge. He was really rated not that long again.
By who? (apart from Foster). Ryan and Coventry have been the top NZ forwards coaches for sometime and would have sat ahead of Plumtree in pecking order (if available).
Funny if he really was the weak link as part of his reputation came from being hired by Joe Schmidt for Ireland's forwards.
