Foster, Robertson etc
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@junior said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@junior said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@Billy-Tell said in Foster must go:
I’d accept keeping the bledisloe and not losing to wales or Scotland on end of year tour. Oh and going 2-0 vs Argentina. Can’t expect a guy to come in at short notice and not potentially lose to SA in SA.
Not good enough. We'd be treading water or going backwards compared to Foster with no guarantee things are really on the up.
Enough mediocrity - put success measures in place and have an action plan if they aren't met.
Whatever we do, we run the risk of tings getting worse. But that in itself is not a reason to do nothing to try to turn around the currently dire situation.
Of course not.
We will all have to accept that with a change in coach, things may just get worse before they get better. We may also get a dead cat bounce where things get immediately worse, but then revert to what we currently have.
Nine Tests (to the end of '22) is more than enough for a decent coach to cement progress. And we'd need to listening for alarm bells if there isn't significant improvement by the end of the RC.
All this will tell us is that things are in fact worse than perhaps we had realised and that things would have gotten worse under Foster.
That's just a ready-made get-out-of-jail for non-improvement. People with far more knowledge of the game than me are saying we have superior players and skills and there are coaches out there with a game plan, able to build confidence and with a winning track record to turn things around.
We need improvement, not a coach telling us it would have been worse under the other guy - not even Foster used that as an excuse.
I would rather we accept these risks and be proactive about trying to avoid them by appointing a new coach with a proven track record of success - whether that's Razor, Schmidt or someone else like Gatland - than continue on with the current team of coaches who have little to no success in their own right.
Totally agree. But let's stop the excuses and acceptance of mediocrity. We have the players and we put in a coach with a track recording of winning. He either get a better track record than Foster got in '21 or considers his position and NZR has a contingency plan in place.
I think we may be a little at cross purposes here - I don't disagree with anything you have written above, I suppose I am being realistic in saying that a new coach may not be able to arrest all of the malaise. Just because this coach may not be the solution does not however mean that Foster is not part of the problem and therefore needs to go.
For what it's worth, I do think Razor or Schmidt - or even Gats for 16 months or so - could improve the team. What that means in terms of results, I don't know - but with anyone of those three, you can be confident that there might be some kind of plan in place and it might even be discernible.
I guess the point I'm making is, if it is just Foster that's the main problem, I don't see why it would take long to see improvement with a new coach, and 9 Tests seems long enough for me to see if the new bloke is up to it.
Any more than 3 losses would be way worse than Foster's win average and I'd be asking some serious questions at that stage. And there has to be a contingency plan in place if that happens.
Because a new coach doesn't have much time to know who are the best and potentially the best players? There are quite a few potential ABs that are relatively untested..
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@junior said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@junior said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@Billy-Tell said in Foster must go:
I’d accept keeping the bledisloe and not losing to wales or Scotland on end of year tour. Oh and going 2-0 vs Argentina. Can’t expect a guy to come in at short notice and not potentially lose to SA in SA.
Not good enough. We'd be treading water or going backwards compared to Foster with no guarantee things are really on the up.
Enough mediocrity - put success measures in place and have an action plan if they aren't met.
Whatever we do, we run the risk of tings getting worse. But that in itself is not a reason to do nothing to try to turn around the currently dire situation.
Of course not.
We will all have to accept that with a change in coach, things may just get worse before they get better. We may also get a dead cat bounce where things get immediately worse, but then revert to what we currently have.
Nine Tests (to the end of '22) is more than enough for a decent coach to cement progress. And we'd need to listening for alarm bells if there isn't significant improvement by the end of the RC.
All this will tell us is that things are in fact worse than perhaps we had realised and that things would have gotten worse under Foster.
That's just a ready-made get-out-of-jail for non-improvement. People with far more knowledge of the game than me are saying we have superior players and skills and there are coaches out there with a game plan, able to build confidence and with a winning track record to turn things around.
We need improvement, not a coach telling us it would have been worse under the other guy - not even Foster used that as an excuse.
I would rather we accept these risks and be proactive about trying to avoid them by appointing a new coach with a proven track record of success - whether that's Razor, Schmidt or someone else like Gatland - than continue on with the current team of coaches who have little to no success in their own right.
Totally agree. But let's stop the excuses and acceptance of mediocrity. We have the players and we put in a coach with a track recording of winning. He either get a better track record than Foster got in '21 or considers his position and NZR has a contingency plan in place.
I think we may be a little at cross purposes here - I don't disagree with anything you have written above, I suppose I am being realistic in saying that a new coach may not be able to arrest all of the malaise. Just because this coach may not be the solution does not however mean that Foster is not part of the problem and therefore needs to go.
For what it's worth, I do think Razor or Schmidt - or even Gats for 16 months or so - could improve the team. What that means in terms of results, I don't know - but with anyone of those three, you can be confident that there might be some kind of plan in place and it might even be discernible.
I guess the point I'm making is, if it is just Foster that's the main problem, I don't see why it would take long to see improvement with a new coach, and 9 Tests seems long enough for me to see if the new bloke is up to it.
Any more than 3 losses would be way worse than Foster's win average and I'd be asking some serious questions at that stage. And there has to be a contingency plan in place if that happens.
Because a new coach doesn't have much time to know who are the best and potentially the best players? There are quite a few potential ABs that are relatively untested..
If, as we keep hearing, Foster has access to the right cattle and the problem is his poor game plan, tactics, competitor analysis and instilling confidence in his team, then I don't buy the "new bloke needs more time" argument to affect a big improvement - especially if the new bloke has a track record of winning. 9 Tests is more than enough and I'd be hearing alarm bells if there's no visible progress after 6.
The "needs more time" argument, sounds like an excuse and aren't we out of those?
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@nostrildamus said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@junior said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@junior said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@Billy-Tell said in Foster must go:
I’d accept keeping the bledisloe and not losing to wales or Scotland on end of year tour. Oh and going 2-0 vs Argentina. Can’t expect a guy to come in at short notice and not potentially lose to SA in SA.
Not good enough. We'd be treading water or going backwards compared to Foster with no guarantee things are really on the up.
Enough mediocrity - put success measures in place and have an action plan if they aren't met.
Whatever we do, we run the risk of tings getting worse. But that in itself is not a reason to do nothing to try to turn around the currently dire situation.
Of course not.
We will all have to accept that with a change in coach, things may just get worse before they get better. We may also get a dead cat bounce where things get immediately worse, but then revert to what we currently have.
Nine Tests (to the end of '22) is more than enough for a decent coach to cement progress. And we'd need to listening for alarm bells if there isn't significant improvement by the end of the RC.
All this will tell us is that things are in fact worse than perhaps we had realised and that things would have gotten worse under Foster.
That's just a ready-made get-out-of-jail for non-improvement. People with far more knowledge of the game than me are saying we have superior players and skills and there are coaches out there with a game plan, able to build confidence and with a winning track record to turn things around.
We need improvement, not a coach telling us it would have been worse under the other guy - not even Foster used that as an excuse.
I would rather we accept these risks and be proactive about trying to avoid them by appointing a new coach with a proven track record of success - whether that's Razor, Schmidt or someone else like Gatland - than continue on with the current team of coaches who have little to no success in their own right.
Totally agree. But let's stop the excuses and acceptance of mediocrity. We have the players and we put in a coach with a track recording of winning. He either get a better track record than Foster got in '21 or considers his position and NZR has a contingency plan in place.
I think we may be a little at cross purposes here - I don't disagree with anything you have written above, I suppose I am being realistic in saying that a new coach may not be able to arrest all of the malaise. Just because this coach may not be the solution does not however mean that Foster is not part of the problem and therefore needs to go.
For what it's worth, I do think Razor or Schmidt - or even Gats for 16 months or so - could improve the team. What that means in terms of results, I don't know - but with anyone of those three, you can be confident that there might be some kind of plan in place and it might even be discernible.
I guess the point I'm making is, if it is just Foster that's the main problem, I don't see why it would take long to see improvement with a new coach, and 9 Tests seems long enough for me to see if the new bloke is up to it.
Any more than 3 losses would be way worse than Foster's win average and I'd be asking some serious questions at that stage. And there has to be a contingency plan in place if that happens.
Because a new coach doesn't have much time to know who are the best and potentially the best players? There are quite a few potential ABs that are relatively untested..
If, as we keep hearing, Foster has access to the right cattle and the problem is his poor game plan, tactics, competitor analysis and instilling confidence in his team, then I don't buy the "new bloke needs more time" argument to affect a big improvement - especially if the new bloke has a track record of winning. 9 Tests is more than enough and I'd be hearing alarm bells if there's no visible progress after 6.
The "needs more time" argument, sounds like an excuse and aren't we out of those?
He has little to no lead in time before heading to the Republic. I think some leeway is called for.
Moffett must be reading the Fern!!!!
-
-
@canefan said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@nostrildamus said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@junior said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@junior said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@Billy-Tell said in Foster must go:
I’d accept keeping the bledisloe and not losing to wales or Scotland on end of year tour. Oh and going 2-0 vs Argentina. Can’t expect a guy to come in at short notice and not potentially lose to SA in SA.
Not good enough. We'd be treading water or going backwards compared to Foster with no guarantee things are really on the up.
Enough mediocrity - put success measures in place and have an action plan if they aren't met.
Whatever we do, we run the risk of tings getting worse. But that in itself is not a reason to do nothing to try to turn around the currently dire situation.
Of course not.
We will all have to accept that with a change in coach, things may just get worse before they get better. We may also get a dead cat bounce where things get immediately worse, but then revert to what we currently have.
Nine Tests (to the end of '22) is more than enough for a decent coach to cement progress. And we'd need to listening for alarm bells if there isn't significant improvement by the end of the RC.
All this will tell us is that things are in fact worse than perhaps we had realised and that things would have gotten worse under Foster.
That's just a ready-made get-out-of-jail for non-improvement. People with far more knowledge of the game than me are saying we have superior players and skills and there are coaches out there with a game plan, able to build confidence and with a winning track record to turn things around.
We need improvement, not a coach telling us it would have been worse under the other guy - not even Foster used that as an excuse.
I would rather we accept these risks and be proactive about trying to avoid them by appointing a new coach with a proven track record of success - whether that's Razor, Schmidt or someone else like Gatland - than continue on with the current team of coaches who have little to no success in their own right.
Totally agree. But let's stop the excuses and acceptance of mediocrity. We have the players and we put in a coach with a track recording of winning. He either get a better track record than Foster got in '21 or considers his position and NZR has a contingency plan in place.
I think we may be a little at cross purposes here - I don't disagree with anything you have written above, I suppose I am being realistic in saying that a new coach may not be able to arrest all of the malaise. Just because this coach may not be the solution does not however mean that Foster is not part of the problem and therefore needs to go.
For what it's worth, I do think Razor or Schmidt - or even Gats for 16 months or so - could improve the team. What that means in terms of results, I don't know - but with anyone of those three, you can be confident that there might be some kind of plan in place and it might even be discernible.
I guess the point I'm making is, if it is just Foster that's the main problem, I don't see why it would take long to see improvement with a new coach, and 9 Tests seems long enough for me to see if the new bloke is up to it.
Any more than 3 losses would be way worse than Foster's win average and I'd be asking some serious questions at that stage. And there has to be a contingency plan in place if that happens.
Because a new coach doesn't have much time to know who are the best and potentially the best players? There are quite a few potential ABs that are relatively untested..
If, as we keep hearing, Foster has access to the right cattle and the problem is his poor game plan, tactics, competitor analysis and instilling confidence in his team, then I don't buy the "new bloke needs more time" argument to affect a big improvement - especially if the new bloke has a track record of winning. 9 Tests is more than enough and I'd be hearing alarm bells if there's no visible progress after 6.
The "needs more time" argument, sounds like an excuse and aren't we out of those?
He has little to no lead in time before heading to the Republic. I think some leeway is called for.
Moffett must be reading the Fern!!!!
I agree with Moffett.
-
@canefan said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@nostrildamus said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@junior said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@junior said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@Billy-Tell said in Foster must go:
I’d accept keeping the bledisloe and not losing to wales or Scotland on end of year tour. Oh and going 2-0 vs Argentina. Can’t expect a guy to come in at short notice and not potentially lose to SA in SA.
Not good enough. We'd be treading water or going backwards compared to Foster with no guarantee things are really on the up.
Enough mediocrity - put success measures in place and have an action plan if they aren't met.
Whatever we do, we run the risk of tings getting worse. But that in itself is not a reason to do nothing to try to turn around the currently dire situation.
Of course not.
We will all have to accept that with a change in coach, things may just get worse before they get better. We may also get a dead cat bounce where things get immediately worse, but then revert to what we currently have.
Nine Tests (to the end of '22) is more than enough for a decent coach to cement progress. And we'd need to listening for alarm bells if there isn't significant improvement by the end of the RC.
All this will tell us is that things are in fact worse than perhaps we had realised and that things would have gotten worse under Foster.
That's just a ready-made get-out-of-jail for non-improvement. People with far more knowledge of the game than me are saying we have superior players and skills and there are coaches out there with a game plan, able to build confidence and with a winning track record to turn things around.
We need improvement, not a coach telling us it would have been worse under the other guy - not even Foster used that as an excuse.
I would rather we accept these risks and be proactive about trying to avoid them by appointing a new coach with a proven track record of success - whether that's Razor, Schmidt or someone else like Gatland - than continue on with the current team of coaches who have little to no success in their own right.
Totally agree. But let's stop the excuses and acceptance of mediocrity. We have the players and we put in a coach with a track recording of winning. He either get a better track record than Foster got in '21 or considers his position and NZR has a contingency plan in place.
I think we may be a little at cross purposes here - I don't disagree with anything you have written above, I suppose I am being realistic in saying that a new coach may not be able to arrest all of the malaise. Just because this coach may not be the solution does not however mean that Foster is not part of the problem and therefore needs to go.
For what it's worth, I do think Razor or Schmidt - or even Gats for 16 months or so - could improve the team. What that means in terms of results, I don't know - but with anyone of those three, you can be confident that there might be some kind of plan in place and it might even be discernible.
I guess the point I'm making is, if it is just Foster that's the main problem, I don't see why it would take long to see improvement with a new coach, and 9 Tests seems long enough for me to see if the new bloke is up to it.
Any more than 3 losses would be way worse than Foster's win average and I'd be asking some serious questions at that stage. And there has to be a contingency plan in place if that happens.
Because a new coach doesn't have much time to know who are the best and potentially the best players? There are quite a few potential ABs that are relatively untested..
If, as we keep hearing, Foster has access to the right cattle and the problem is his poor game plan, tactics, competitor analysis and instilling confidence in his team, then I don't buy the "new bloke needs more time" argument to affect a big improvement - especially if the new bloke has a track record of winning. 9 Tests is more than enough and I'd be hearing alarm bells if there's no visible progress after 6.
The "needs more time" argument, sounds like an excuse and aren't we out of those?
He has little to no lead in time before heading to the Republic. I think some leeway is called for.
Moffett must be reading the Fern!!!!
Wayne Smith should be left to continue his role with the Black Ferns. Either the womens game is important or it's not.
Schmidt, Robertson and MacDonald looks like a bloody good trio. Razor to be head coach and Schmidt to provide the role Smith used to with the cartel.
-
@Donsteppa said in Foster must go:
I read somewhere over the weekend that Foster is seen as too much of a Good Cop within the setup. As much as I've gnashed my teeth about his selections and tactics since forever, one thing that has stood out is that I've never heard anyone say a bad word about him as a person.
Though this is a job for top performance as well, not solely for being a top bloke.
I've thought about this more and more recently with the way the team has been going. A few thoughts keep going around in my head on this point - are they talking him up as a person because they can't as a coach?
Do the players really like him as a person and enjoy the environment in which they can "express themselves" without fear? If so, are the players (most of whom are young blokes in the younger millennial bracket) really the best judges of what kind of coach and environment they need to really challenge and get the best out of themselves?
-
@canefan said in Foster must go:
He has little to no lead in time before heading to the Republic. I think some leeway is called for.
Oh, I'm not expecting instant success & 50-point wins, just progress. And I can's see why that can't be visible reasonably quickly.
Foster won 11 of his first 14 games with one draw and surely we should expect something at least as good with a decent coach.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@canefan said in Foster must go:
He has little to no lead in time before heading to the Republic. I think some leeway is called for.
Oh, I'm not expecting instant success & 50-point wins, just progress. And I can's see why that can't be visible reasonably quickly.
Foster won 11 of his first 14 games with one draw and surely we should expect something at least as good with a decent coach.
Travelling away for a few weeks would probably help when trying to change things. The downside is having to play the old enemy. I can't remember who Fozz's team played in those 11 wins. But games vs SA and Oz, (Argie will be tough if we play them away), and the EOYT is a pretty tough intro. I would not expect Fozz to win many of those games, so I will extend that to the new man. But I want to see a change in the way we play on the field, and if we win too that will be great
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@canefan said in Foster must go:
He has little to no lead in time before heading to the Republic. I think some leeway is called for.
Oh, I'm not expecting instant success & 50-point wins, just progress. And I can's see why that can't be visible reasonably quickly.
Foster won 11 of his first 14 games with one draw and surely we should expect something at least as good with a decent coach.
Eh? Foster was involved for how many years before that? And inherited a team that wasn't in the doldrums.
-
@Bones said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@canefan said in Foster must go:
He has little to no lead in time before heading to the Republic. I think some leeway is called for.
Oh, I'm not expecting instant success & 50-point wins, just progress. And I can's see why that can't be visible reasonably quickly.
Foster won 11 of his first 14 games with one draw and surely we should expect something at least as good with a decent coach.
Eh? Foster was involved for how many years before that? And inherited a team that wasn't
in the doldrumsa rabbleFixed
-
@canefan said in Foster must go:
@Bones said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@canefan said in Foster must go:
He has little to no lead in time before heading to the Republic. I think some leeway is called for.
Oh, I'm not expecting instant success & 50-point wins, just progress. And I can's see why that can't be visible reasonably quickly.
Foster won 11 of his first 14 games with one draw and surely we should expect something at least as good with a decent coach.
Eh? Foster was involved for how many years before that? And inherited a team that wasn't
in the doldrumsa rabbleFixed
Thanks. I don't even know where the dd's are anyway
-
@Bones said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@canefan said in Foster must go:
He has little to no lead in time before heading to the Republic. I think some leeway is called for.
Oh, I'm not expecting instant success & 50-point wins, just progress. And I can's see why that can't be visible reasonably quickly.
Foster won 11 of his first 14 games with one draw and surely we should expect something at least as good with a decent coach.
Eh? Foster was involved for how many years before that?
The argument at the time, IIRC, was we needed someone fresh and with a track record of success - unlike Foster. So if we get that, we should expect an improvement surely.
And inherited a team that wasn't in the doldrums.
It was on a downward slope though and the pattern of winning great, then playing crap the next game along with being out-coached and players running around like headless chooks, was obvious. The new bloke needs to show he can turn that around
-
@Bones said in Foster must go:
Eh? Foster was involved for how many years before that? And inherited a team that wasn't
in the doldrumsa rabbleThanks. I don't even know where the dd's are anyway
where the unemployed percussionists live?
-
@voodoo said in Foster must go:
@nostrildamus said in Foster must go:
@voodoo said in Foster must go:
@mariner4life said in Foster must go:
@Crucial said in Foster must go:
@Tim said in Foster must go:
Newshub claimed that they've been informed by "sources" that sacking Foster would cost $3M to $4M.
Depends how you add it up. Maybe 18 months payout for Foster (NZRs fault) and 18 months for the new guy.
If Schmidt he’s already on a contract so the increase won’t be a full salary. Then there’s the assistants to pay out.yeah fair point
It's semi-fair. The cost of the replacement guys shouldn't be counted as an additional cost, just any incremental cost above what the current guys are getting. Meaningless number if we count both in any assessment of what to do from here.
But surely the real cost, is, how well will the brand do over the next two years the way we are going?
The brand is everything!
The brand is the new aura
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@Bones said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@canefan said in Foster must go:
He has little to no lead in time before heading to the Republic. I think some leeway is called for.
Oh, I'm not expecting instant success & 50-point wins, just progress. And I can's see why that can't be visible reasonably quickly.
Foster won 11 of his first 14 games with one draw and surely we should expect something at least as good with a decent coach.
Eh? Foster was involved for how many years before that?
The argument at the time, IIRC, was we needed someone fresh and with a track record of success - unlike Foster. So if we get that, we should expect an improvement surely.
And inherited a team that wasn't in the doldrums.
It was on a downward slope though and the pattern of winning great, then playing crap the next game along with being out-coached and players running around like headless chooks was obvious.
I'm not really arguing with you, I just don't think we have the time, product, board discernment or even 'aura' at the moment to be in a strong bargaining position...
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@junior said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@junior said in Foster must go:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go:
@Billy-Tell said in Foster must go:
I’d accept keeping the bledisloe and not losing to wales or Scotland on end of year tour. Oh and going 2-0 vs Argentina. Can’t expect a guy to come in at short notice and not potentially lose to SA in SA.
Not good enough. We'd be treading water or going backwards compared to Foster with no guarantee things are really on the up.
Enough mediocrity - put success measures in place and have an action plan if they aren't met.
Whatever we do, we run the risk of tings getting worse. But that in itself is not a reason to do nothing to try to turn around the currently dire situation.
Of course not.
We will all have to accept that with a change in coach, things may just get worse before they get better. We may also get a dead cat bounce where things get immediately worse, but then revert to what we currently have.
Nine Tests (to the end of '22) is more than enough for a decent coach to cement progress. And we'd need to listening for alarm bells if there isn't significant improvement by the end of the RC.
All this will tell us is that things are in fact worse than perhaps we had realised and that things would have gotten worse under Foster.
That's just a ready-made get-out-of-jail for non-improvement. People with far more knowledge of the game than me are saying we have superior players and skills and there are coaches out there with a game plan, able to build confidence and with a winning track record to turn things around.
We need improvement, not a coach telling us it would have been worse under the other guy - not even Foster used that as an excuse.
I would rather we accept these risks and be proactive about trying to avoid them by appointing a new coach with a proven track record of success - whether that's Razor, Schmidt or someone else like Gatland - than continue on with the current team of coaches who have little to no success in their own right.
Totally agree. But let's stop the excuses and acceptance of mediocrity. We have the players and we put in a coach with a track recording of winning. He either get a better track record than Foster got in '21 or considers his position and NZR has a contingency plan in place.
I think we may be a little at cross purposes here - I don't disagree with anything you have written above, I suppose I am being realistic in saying that a new coach may not be able to arrest all of the malaise. Just because this coach may not be the solution does not however mean that Foster is not part of the problem and therefore needs to go.
For what it's worth, I do think Razor or Schmidt - or even Gats for 16 months or so - could improve the team. What that means in terms of results, I don't know - but with anyone of those three, you can be confident that there might be some kind of plan in place and it might even be discernible.
I guess the point I'm making is, if it is just Foster that's the main problem, I don't see why it would take long to see improvement with a new coach, and 9 Tests seems long enough for me to see if the new bloke is up to it.
Any more than 3 losses would be way worse than Foster's win average and I'd be asking some serious questions at that stage. And there has to be a contingency plan in place if that happens.
Everyone almost to a man here can see that the problem is not just Foster - there are systemic "NZ Rugby problems" and there are "All Black problems", some of which are downstream of the "NZ Rugby problems". Sacking Foster is obviously not going to resolve the "NZ Rugby problems", I don't believe anyone has said they would and, if they have, that person (or persons) is obviously a moron.
However, there are specific "All Black problems" that could be resolved by a change in the overall coaching group, including the head coach. These include things like game plans / strategies, opposition analysis, etc. all of which can and should generally result in better infield performances. This is the most easily identifiable and resolvable of the "All Black problems" at the moment. It won't resolve all of the "All Black problems" - for example, we have the best available talent in the squad - and it certainly won't resolve all of the "NZ Rugby problems".
But, in all likelihood, it will resolve the key "All Black problem" of not getting the most out of the talent we have available.
-
@TheMojoman said in Foster must go:
Foster by the numbers - https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/300639756/the-charts-that-put-ian-fosters-all-blacks-coaching-record-in-sharp-perspective
Looking at those stats, you have to feel a bit sorry for the flak that Vodanovich is getting on here. 40% of his tests were against a very good Lions side I think.
-
@Catogrande said in Foster must go:
@TheMojoman said in Foster must go:
Foster by the numbers - https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/300639756/the-charts-that-put-ian-fosters-all-blacks-coaching-record-in-sharp-perspective
Looking at those stats, you have to feel a bit sorry for the flak that Vodanovich is getting on here. 40% of his tests were against a very good Lions side I think.
Heretic 🔱
-
@Catogrande said in Foster must go:
@TheMojoman said in Foster must go:
Foster by the numbers - https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/300639756/the-charts-that-put-ian-fosters-all-blacks-coaching-record-in-sharp-perspective
Looking at those stats, you have to feel a bit sorry for the flak that Vodanovich is getting on here. 40% of his tests were against a very good Lions side I think.
He wasn't rated by the players from what I've read. According to them, his idea of coaching was to simply train the team to exhaustion and hope for the best tactics-wise on the day. Zero innovation.
There was a huge exodus of experienced players from the AB's after the 1970 tour and some have given him as the reason. IIRC Chris Laidlaw was particularly scathing.
