Foster, Robertson etc
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
if the ABs do win both tests will people stop adding to this thread I wonder?
I've got to say I've learnt from this debacle, when my job is threatened I'll just tell my boss all it needs is a few tweaks..As has been mentioned a lot, it is the manner of the victory that counts. coached play vs individual genius
-
@nostrildamus said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
if the ABs do win both tests will people stop adding to this thread I wonder?
I've got to say I've learnt from this debacle, when my job is threatened I'll just tell my boss all it needs is a few tweaks..Learnings mate. Learnings.
-
@Machpants said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@taniwharugby said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Machpants yeah that is pretty shit, happy to throw Plumtree and Moar under the bus (although I guess they got paid out?)
As I have said before, I cannot believe there were no strict KPIs around performance put in last year when he re-signed, given his role is all about performance...if he didnt like them then or think he could achieve them, he wouldnt have re-signed would he!
For me, I would have had win Irish series, retain Bledisloe as non-negotiable must achieves, this tour, despite our record in SA in recent years, I think losing both in tight affairs wouldnt be the end of the world, but winning 1, probably should have been an important one...especially off the back of a lost home series.
I totally agree that NZR having no performance related non negotiable KPIs in the finest is another example of their utter incompetence.
Sacking him will cost a few million in contract penalties, they made the 400 IQ decision of extending his contract for another 2 years before he'd even faced a top 6 ranked nation. Once he'd beaten Fiji, Tonga & Australia B... well that obviously earned a contract extension!
-
Once the envy of every rugby nation on all levels we are now like a banana republic African country.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
Once the envy of every rugby nation on all levels we are now like a banana republic African country.
@Billy-Tell said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
Once the envy of every rugby nation on all levels we are now like a banana republic African country.
Not sure about that, they might be faster..
-
@Tim said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
Exclusive: Ian Foster told to resign if All Blacks lose in South Africa
The total cost of terminating the contracts of Foster and team could be in excess of $3m.
All Blacks head coach Ian Foster is understood to have been told by his New Zealand Rugby bosses that they expect him to resign if his side loses in South Africa or fails to show definitive improvements.
This seems unlikely. But the media pressure (potentially egged on by the NZRU) would go into overdrive if they lost both and he didn't resign.
Can't believe they didn't have a performance clause. Maybe they do and 2 more losses might drop below the threshold.
-
Ach. Regardless of “doing the right thing”, why would Foster, or anyone in his position, jump, when getting pushed give you a better payout?
-
@Catogrande said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
Ach. Regardless of “doing the right thing”, why would Foster, or anyone in his position, jump, when getting pushed give you a better payout?
I recall when the Eichelbaum report into the 2003 hosting rights balls up was released the (new not Murray McCaw) Chairman (whose name escapes me) of the NZRU (as they were) announced CEO David Rutherford had "made an offer to resign" which they accepted.
Not sure it was commented on much at the time but I took that as him saying he'll resign with a specified payout.
Nothing stopping Foz doing similar.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
Once the envy of every rugby nation on all levels we are now like a banana republic African country.
Every second article I see 'suggested' to me on FB from Planet Rugby, Ruck, Irish Rugby, SA rugby is piling in, they be lovin' it.
-
Yeah, but make sure of the payout first yeah?
-
@Catogrande said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
Yeah, but make sure of the payout first yeah?
Kinda what I'm saying
-
@Victor-Meldrew How much more different is Super Rugby and the ABs when it comes to coaching. They all have assistants, managers and probably coms people. The coach just needs to coach and consider the tactics of the opposition. The ABs are just on a larger scale. Not sure why you can not plug the best guy in there, irrespective of international experience. Seems this to be a criteria, if it is at all, used to rule out potential coaches rather than a rational reason for selecting then. Thus the Foster selection is more obvious. The more I think about it the more this idea is governmental in process.
-
@broughie said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew How much more different is Super Rugby and the ABs when it comes to coaching. They all have assistants, managers and probably coms people. The coach just needs to coach and consider the tactics of the opposition.
As @nzzp said, Super Rugby coach has more control overall with single access to players, spends pretty much all year with them, and has all season to develop tactics and game plan. Test coach has relatively limited time to forge a team from diverse coaching cultures, combinations, tactics and game plans. Test rugby is more intense and pressured.
The ABs are just on a larger scale.
Not sure that's right. It's not the scale, it's he level of intensity, preparation timescale limitations, pressure & quality of opposition.
Not sure why you can not plug the best guy in there, irrespective of international experience. Seems this to be a criteria, if it is at all, used to rule out potential coaches rather than a rational reason for selecting then.
You want the best guy for Test rugby so ideally you'd want that coach to have experience at that level. Not saying that should rule them out, but there's a bigger risk with a coach with zero Test experience.
Thus the Foster selection is more obvious. The more I think about it the more this idea is governmental in process.
Depends on how risk averse you want to be, I guess. NZR has set great store in continuity and that approach been successful for more than a decade with Henry & Hansen. In an ideal world, Foster would have Robertson and/or Joseph as his assistants to provide input & build experience but that didn't happen.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@broughie said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew How much more different is Super Rugby and the ABs when it comes to coaching. They all have assistants, managers and probably coms people. The coach just needs to coach and consider the tactics of the opposition.
As @nzzp said, Super Rugby coach has more control overall with single access to players, spends pretty much all year with them, and has all season to develop tactics and game plan. Test coach has relatively limited time to forge a team from diverse coaching cultures, combinations, tactics and game plans. Test rugby is more intense and pressured.
The ABs are just on a larger scale.
Not sure that's right. It's not the scale, it's he level of intensity, preparation timescale limitations, pressure & quality of opposition.
Not sure why you can not plug the best guy in there, irrespective of international experience. Seems this to be a criteria, if it is at all, used to rule out potential coaches rather than a rational reason for selecting then.
You want the best guy for Test rugby so ideally you'd want that coach to have experience at that level. Not saying that should rule them out, but there's a bigger risk with a coach with zero Test experience.
Thus the Foster selection is more obvious. The more I think about it the more this idea is governmental in process.
Depends on how risk averse you want to be, I guess. NZR has set great store in continuity and that approach been successful for more than a decade with Henry & Hansen. In an ideal world, Foster would have Robertson and/or Joseph as his assistants to provide input & build experience but that didn't happen.
Good replies. Worth remembering that Joseph/Razor/Rennie didn't want to be assistants either.
Players will tell ypu that test rugby is a different kettle of fish and they can find it intense and fast. Definitely up a notch.
Super is also a season. You might want to win every match but their is an endgame. Dropped matches can be brushed aside, players can be rested with weaker alternatives hidden and protected if required. Gameplans can be designed, trained for and implemented over a long period. It's more akin to Eddie Jones planning for England where you know the matches you need to win and target those.
ABs don't have that luxury so there is a mindset change required from the coach and the way they used to work succesfully may not be the way needed in tests. Hence the risk that a lack of international experience can bite. We saw it with Deans. -
@Crucial said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@broughie said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew How much more different is Super Rugby and the ABs when it comes to coaching. They all have assistants, managers and probably coms people. The coach just needs to coach and consider the tactics of the opposition.
As @nzzp said, Super Rugby coach has more control overall with single access to players, spends pretty much all year with them, and has all season to develop tactics and game plan. Test coach has relatively limited time to forge a team from diverse coaching cultures, combinations, tactics and game plans. Test rugby is more intense and pressured.
The ABs are just on a larger scale.
Not sure that's right. It's not the scale, it's he level of intensity, preparation timescale limitations, pressure & quality of opposition.
Not sure why you can not plug the best guy in there, irrespective of international experience. Seems this to be a criteria, if it is at all, used to rule out potential coaches rather than a rational reason for selecting then.
You want the best guy for Test rugby so ideally you'd want that coach to have experience at that level. Not saying that should rule them out, but there's a bigger risk with a coach with zero Test experience.
Thus the Foster selection is more obvious. The more I think about it the more this idea is governmental in process.
Depends on how risk averse you want to be, I guess. NZR has set great store in continuity and that approach been successful for more than a decade with Henry & Hansen. In an ideal world, Foster would have Robertson and/or Joseph as his assistants to provide input & build experience but that didn't happen.
Good replies. Worth remembering that Joseph/Razor/Rennie didn't want to be assistants either.
Players will tell ypu that test rugby is a different kettle of fish and they can find it intense and fast. Definitely up a notch.
Super is also a season. You might want to win every match but their is an endgame. Dropped matches can be brushed aside, players can be rested with weaker alternatives hidden and protected if required. Gameplans can be designed, trained for and implemented over a long period. It's more akin to Eddie Jones planning for England where you know the matches you need to win and target those.
ABs don't have that luxury so there is a mindset change required from the coach and the way they used to work succesfully may not be the way needed in tests. Hence the risk that a lack of international experience can bite. We saw it with Deans.Or international experience can bite
Foster has had plenty not helping him much.
Plumtree and Moar both had international experience with the AB's they didn't progress.
Mcleod has been in the AB set up for years.You can have as much international experience as you like and still be not up to the job we are seeing that now.
-
@Chris said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Crucial said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@broughie said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew How much more different is Super Rugby and the ABs when it comes to coaching. They all have assistants, managers and probably coms people. The coach just needs to coach and consider the tactics of the opposition.
As @nzzp said, Super Rugby coach has more control overall with single access to players, spends pretty much all year with them, and has all season to develop tactics and game plan. Test coach has relatively limited time to forge a team from diverse coaching cultures, combinations, tactics and game plans. Test rugby is more intense and pressured.
The ABs are just on a larger scale.
Not sure that's right. It's not the scale, it's he level of intensity, preparation timescale limitations, pressure & quality of opposition.
Not sure why you can not plug the best guy in there, irrespective of international experience. Seems this to be a criteria, if it is at all, used to rule out potential coaches rather than a rational reason for selecting then.
You want the best guy for Test rugby so ideally you'd want that coach to have experience at that level. Not saying that should rule them out, but there's a bigger risk with a coach with zero Test experience.
Thus the Foster selection is more obvious. The more I think about it the more this idea is governmental in process.
Depends on how risk averse you want to be, I guess. NZR has set great store in continuity and that approach been successful for more than a decade with Henry & Hansen. In an ideal world, Foster would have Robertson and/or Joseph as his assistants to provide input & build experience but that didn't happen.
Good replies. Worth remembering that Joseph/Razor/Rennie didn't want to be assistants either.
Players will tell ypu that test rugby is a different kettle of fish and they can find it intense and fast. Definitely up a notch.
Super is also a season. You might want to win every match but their is an endgame. Dropped matches can be brushed aside, players can be rested with weaker alternatives hidden and protected if required. Gameplans can be designed, trained for and implemented over a long period. It's more akin to Eddie Jones planning for England where you know the matches you need to win and target those.
ABs don't have that luxury so there is a mindset change required from the coach and the way they used to work succesfully may not be the way needed in tests. Hence the risk that a lack of international experience can bite. We saw it with Deans.Or international experience can bite
Foster has had plenty not helping him much.
Plumtree and Moar both had international experience with the AB's they didn't progress.
Mcleod has been in the AB set up for years.You can have as much international experience as you like and still be not up to the job we are seeing that now.
I think we all get that. The discussion was about NZR being risk averse and laying out the obvious differences between test rugby and Super for a coach.
-
@Crucial said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Chris said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Crucial said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@broughie said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
@Victor-Meldrew How much more different is Super Rugby and the ABs when it comes to coaching. They all have assistants, managers and probably coms people. The coach just needs to coach and consider the tactics of the opposition.
As @nzzp said, Super Rugby coach has more control overall with single access to players, spends pretty much all year with them, and has all season to develop tactics and game plan. Test coach has relatively limited time to forge a team from diverse coaching cultures, combinations, tactics and game plans. Test rugby is more intense and pressured.
The ABs are just on a larger scale.
Not sure that's right. It's not the scale, it's he level of intensity, preparation timescale limitations, pressure & quality of opposition.
Not sure why you can not plug the best guy in there, irrespective of international experience. Seems this to be a criteria, if it is at all, used to rule out potential coaches rather than a rational reason for selecting then.
You want the best guy for Test rugby so ideally you'd want that coach to have experience at that level. Not saying that should rule them out, but there's a bigger risk with a coach with zero Test experience.
Thus the Foster selection is more obvious. The more I think about it the more this idea is governmental in process.
Depends on how risk averse you want to be, I guess. NZR has set great store in continuity and that approach been successful for more than a decade with Henry & Hansen. In an ideal world, Foster would have Robertson and/or Joseph as his assistants to provide input & build experience but that didn't happen.
Good replies. Worth remembering that Joseph/Razor/Rennie didn't want to be assistants either.
Players will tell ypu that test rugby is a different kettle of fish and they can find it intense and fast. Definitely up a notch.
Super is also a season. You might want to win every match but their is an endgame. Dropped matches can be brushed aside, players can be rested with weaker alternatives hidden and protected if required. Gameplans can be designed, trained for and implemented over a long period. It's more akin to Eddie Jones planning for England where you know the matches you need to win and target those.
ABs don't have that luxury so there is a mindset change required from the coach and the way they used to work succesfully may not be the way needed in tests. Hence the risk that a lack of international experience can bite. We saw it with Deans.Or international experience can bite
Foster has had plenty not helping him much.
Plumtree and Moar both had international experience with the AB's they didn't progress.
Mcleod has been in the AB set up for years.You can have as much international experience as you like and still be not up to the job we are seeing that now.
I think we all get that. The discussion was about NZR being risk averse and laying out the obvious differences between test rugby and Super for a coach.
Ok fair enough I didn't read all the thread.
-
A big part of what made the cartel great, was the fact that all 3 had strong international experience. We have many coaches plying their trade throughout the world, some are regarded as being among the best. I don't like his whiner persona but a guy like Warren Gatland must have valuable information that the ABs could use, just like Schmidt. Then you have guys like Joseph and Brown who, despite only wanting to be the top guy in the setup, need to be harnessed if at all possible. Maybe it's an impossible task getting these guys on the same page. But the AB job is still the pinnacle for a NZ coach, and one of the biggest jobs in test rugby. The NZRFU must do a better job of trying to keep this talent engaged
-
If Robertson comes in and does like Rennie did with the Chiefs, there may be some red faces around here.
Sure he might not be able to turn the ABs around.
But some of the people here seem to regard that as also meaning he won't. Like they actually want him not to do so.
-
@Chester-Draws said in Foster must go / Assistant Coach changes:
If Robertson comes in and does like Rennie did with the Chiefs, there may be some red faces around here.
Sure he might not be able to turn the ABs around.
But some of the people here seem to regard that as also meaning he won't. Like they actually want him not to do so.
Seems to have been a bit if that over the last couple of years.
