Foster, Robertson etc
-
@kiwi_expat said in Foster:
Only two coaches in the history of the ABs have had international experience before being appointed.
And they are the only two coaches in the history of the ABs to win World Cups in the professional era.
The claim that potential coaches need overseas experience is simply nonsense.
No, it's a logical and sensible view which NZR seem to hold. It may not always be the correct view and it's open to criticism, but it is anything but a nonsensical one. (Personally, I find the idea that NZ rugby coaches are so good they won't benefit much from international experience arrogant in the extreme)
usually peddled by those with an anti-Robertson bias.
Get a grip. Just because people don't buy into the "Robertson is the Savior and/or the Greatest Rugby Coach in the World" fetish, doesn't mean they have an anti-Robertson bias.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
Not really. Even the players admitted that the assistants Gary Gold and Dick Muir were ultimately responsible for the success of that era & said De Villiers was pretty useless as a coach.
Every different to Foster then when you consider the high praise he gets from players like Ritchie, Ardie and Sam Whitelock.
Tbf, Mark "never made the playoffs despite having absolute power" Hammett seemed to have plenty of love from the players he didn't send packing.
I've no doubt that perhaps one-on-one Foster has plenty of wisdom to impart. He was a decent player himself and rose through the coaching ranks very quickly. Clearly he has something of value. Unfortunately it's patently obvious that he's not a very good head coach. The evidence obviously being the Chiefs and ABs. If I can give him credit for something it's having at least been humble enough to accept the changes that clearly needed to be made. While they came very belatedly and allowed him to save his job, many would probably have gone the full bottom lip and had a tanty. Maybe he does that in private but I for one feel a hell of alot better with Schmidt and Ryan holding his hand. It's a pretty ridiculous situation but probably the best outcome before handing over to Razor for fresh start (hopefully 🤞) after the RWC.
May be. But it's got bugger-all to do with the ludicrous idea that when the AB's lose or the forwards play like shit, Foster, as Head Coach, should take the blame, but when they win, it's all down to the assistants and nothing to do with the Head Coach.
Moar and Plum were the scapegoats post Ireland. Ryan and Schmidt get the plaudits. Foster has a 5/4 win ratio this year and by all accounts is still on tract to list 2 of 4 on the EOYT which, in itself, will be another record.
-
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
Not really. Even the players admitted that the assistants Gary Gold and Dick Muir were ultimately responsible for the success of that era & said De Villiers was pretty useless as a coach.
Every different to Foster then when you consider the high praise he gets from players like Ritchie, Ardie and Sam Whitelock.
Tbf, Mark "never made the playoffs despite having absolute power" Hammett seemed to have plenty of love from the players he didn't send packing.
I've no doubt that perhaps one-on-one Foster has plenty of wisdom to impart. He was a decent player himself and rose through the coaching ranks very quickly. Clearly he has something of value. Unfortunately it's patently obvious that he's not a very good head coach. The evidence obviously being the Chiefs and ABs. If I can give him credit for something it's having at least been humble enough to accept the changes that clearly needed to be made. While they came very belatedly and allowed him to save his job, many would probably have gone the full bottom lip and had a tanty. Maybe he does that in private but I for one feel a hell of alot better with Schmidt and Ryan holding his hand. It's a pretty ridiculous situation but probably the best outcome before handing over to Razor for fresh start (hopefully 🤞) after the RWC.
May be. But it's got bugger-all to do with the ludicrous idea that when the AB's lose or the forwards play like shit, Foster, as Head Coach, should take the blame, but when they win, it's all down to the assistants and nothing to do with the Head Coach.
Moar and Plum were the scapegoats post Ireland. Ryan and Schmidt get the plaudits.
So now you're arguing Foster shouldn't take responsibility for the Ireland debacle as it was down to Moar and Plumtree.
Horseshit. He's the head coach. He takes responsibility for the Ireland debacle and gets the credit for winning the RC & Bledisloe (again)
Foster has a 5/4 win ratio this year and by all accounts is still on tract to list 2 of 4 on the EOYT which, in itself, will be another record.
"By all accounts"? So no-one, absolutely no-one, is thinking they'll do better than 50% eh?
-
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
Moar and Plum were the scapegoats post Ireland. Ryan and Schmidt get the plaudits.
Good point!
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
Get a grip. Just because people don't buy into the "Robertson is the Savior and/or the Greatest Rugby Coach in the World" fetish, doesn't mean they have an anti-Robertson bias.
Or if they support Roberson, it doesn't mean they think he is the Savoir/Greatest Coach in the World Fetish, they just think he would do a better job than Foster. The bar isn't that high.
-
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
Get a grip. Just because people don't buy into the "Robertson is the Savior and/or the Greatest Rugby Coach in the World" fetish, doesn't mean they have an anti-Robertson bias.
Or if they support Roberson, it doesn't mean they think he is the Savoir/Greatest Coach in the World Fetish, they just think he would do a better job than Foster. The bar isn't that high.
Of course not. But as you're no doubt aware, that's a completely different argument.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
Not really. Even the players admitted that the assistants Gary Gold and Dick Muir were ultimately responsible for the success of that era & said De Villiers was pretty useless as a coach.
Every different to Foster then when you consider the high praise he gets from players like Ritchie, Ardie and Sam Whitelock.
Tbf, Mark "never made the playoffs despite having absolute power" Hammett seemed to have plenty of love from the players he didn't send packing.
I've no doubt that perhaps one-on-one Foster has plenty of wisdom to impart. He was a decent player himself and rose through the coaching ranks very quickly. Clearly he has something of value. Unfortunately it's patently obvious that he's not a very good head coach. The evidence obviously being the Chiefs and ABs. If I can give him credit for something it's having at least been humble enough to accept the changes that clearly needed to be made. While they came very belatedly and allowed him to save his job, many would probably have gone the full bottom lip and had a tanty. Maybe he does that in private but I for one feel a hell of alot better with Schmidt and Ryan holding his hand. It's a pretty ridiculous situation but probably the best outcome before handing over to Razor for fresh start (hopefully 🤞) after the RWC.
May be. But it's got bugger-all to do with the ludicrous idea that when the AB's lose or the forwards play like shit, Foster, as Head Coach, should take the blame, but when they win, it's all down to the assistants and nothing to do with the Head Coach.
Moar and Plum were the scapegoats post Ireland. Ryan and Schmidt get the plaudits.
So now you're arguing Foster shouldn't take responsibility for the Ireland debacle as it was down to Moar and Plumtree.
Horseshit. He's the head coach. He takes responsibility for the Ireland debacle and gets the credit for winning the RC & Bledisloe (again)
Foster has a 5/4 win ratio this year and by all accounts is still on tract to list 2 of 4 on the EOYT which, in itself, will be another record.
"By all accounts"? So no-one, absolutely no-one, is thinking they'll do better than 50% eh?
You keep swinging and missing. Foster should have gone with the assistants. New boys come in, they play better. Ironic.
Haven't seen nor heard of anyone thinking we'll do good on the EOYT. Almost worth it though to see you spark out.
-
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
Not really. Even the players admitted that the assistants Gary Gold and Dick Muir were ultimately responsible for the success of that era & said De Villiers was pretty useless as a coach.
Every different to Foster then when you consider the high praise he gets from players like Ritchie, Ardie and Sam Whitelock.
Tbf, Mark "never made the playoffs despite having absolute power" Hammett seemed to have plenty of love from the players he didn't send packing.
I've no doubt that perhaps one-on-one Foster has plenty of wisdom to impart. He was a decent player himself and rose through the coaching ranks very quickly. Clearly he has something of value. Unfortunately it's patently obvious that he's not a very good head coach. The evidence obviously being the Chiefs and ABs. If I can give him credit for something it's having at least been humble enough to accept the changes that clearly needed to be made. While they came very belatedly and allowed him to save his job, many would probably have gone the full bottom lip and had a tanty. Maybe he does that in private but I for one feel a hell of alot better with Schmidt and Ryan holding his hand. It's a pretty ridiculous situation but probably the best outcome before handing over to Razor for fresh start (hopefully 🤞) after the RWC.
May be. But it's got bugger-all to do with the ludicrous idea that when the AB's lose or the forwards play like shit, Foster, as Head Coach, should take the blame, but when they win, it's all down to the assistants and nothing to do with the Head Coach.
Moar and Plum were the scapegoats post Ireland. Ryan and Schmidt get the plaudits.
So now you're arguing Foster shouldn't take responsibility for the Ireland debacle as it was down to Moar and Plumtree.
Horseshit. He's the head coach. He takes responsibility for the Ireland debacle and gets the credit for winning the RC & Bledisloe (again)
Foster has a 5/4 win ratio this year and by all accounts is still on tract to list 2 of 4 on the EOYT which, in itself, will be another record.
"By all accounts"? So no-one, absolutely no-one, is thinking they'll do better than 50% eh?
You keep swinging and missing. Foster should have gone with the assistants. New boys come in, they play better. Ironic.
That's not irony. The new assistants may simply be better at implementing the desired strategy of the head coach.
-
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
Not really. Even the players admitted that the assistants Gary Gold and Dick Muir were ultimately responsible for the success of that era & said De Villiers was pretty useless as a coach.
Every different to Foster then when you consider the high praise he gets from players like Ritchie, Ardie and Sam Whitelock.
Tbf, Mark "never made the playoffs despite having absolute power" Hammett seemed to have plenty of love from the players he didn't send packing.
I've no doubt that perhaps one-on-one Foster has plenty of wisdom to impart. He was a decent player himself and rose through the coaching ranks very quickly. Clearly he has something of value. Unfortunately it's patently obvious that he's not a very good head coach. The evidence obviously being the Chiefs and ABs. If I can give him credit for something it's having at least been humble enough to accept the changes that clearly needed to be made. While they came very belatedly and allowed him to save his job, many would probably have gone the full bottom lip and had a tanty. Maybe he does that in private but I for one feel a hell of alot better with Schmidt and Ryan holding his hand. It's a pretty ridiculous situation but probably the best outcome before handing over to Razor for fresh start (hopefully 🤞) after the RWC.
May be. But it's got bugger-all to do with the ludicrous idea that when the AB's lose or the forwards play like shit, Foster, as Head Coach, should take the blame, but when they win, it's all down to the assistants and nothing to do with the Head Coach.
Moar and Plum were the scapegoats post Ireland. Ryan and Schmidt get the plaudits.
So now you're arguing Foster shouldn't take responsibility for the Ireland debacle as it was down to Moar and Plumtree.
Horseshit. He's the head coach. He takes responsibility for the Ireland debacle and gets the credit for winning the RC & Bledisloe (again)
Foster has a 5/4 win ratio this year and by all accounts is still on tract to list 2 of 4 on the EOYT which, in itself, will be another record.
"By all accounts"? So no-one, absolutely no-one, is thinking they'll do better than 50% eh?
You keep swinging and missing.
Mate, trust me, I'm really not trying....
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
Not really. Even the players admitted that the assistants Gary Gold and Dick Muir were ultimately responsible for the success of that era & said De Villiers was pretty useless as a coach.
Every different to Foster then when you consider the high praise he gets from players like Ritchie, Ardie and Sam Whitelock.
Tbf, Mark "never made the playoffs despite having absolute power" Hammett seemed to have plenty of love from the players he didn't send packing.
I've no doubt that perhaps one-on-one Foster has plenty of wisdom to impart. He was a decent player himself and rose through the coaching ranks very quickly. Clearly he has something of value. Unfortunately it's patently obvious that he's not a very good head coach. The evidence obviously being the Chiefs and ABs. If I can give him credit for something it's having at least been humble enough to accept the changes that clearly needed to be made. While they came very belatedly and allowed him to save his job, many would probably have gone the full bottom lip and had a tanty. Maybe he does that in private but I for one feel a hell of alot better with Schmidt and Ryan holding his hand. It's a pretty ridiculous situation but probably the best outcome before handing over to Razor for fresh start (hopefully 🤞) after the RWC.
May be. But it's got bugger-all to do with the ludicrous idea that when the AB's lose or the forwards play like shit, Foster, as Head Coach, should take the blame, but when they win, it's all down to the assistants and nothing to do with the Head Coach.
Moar and Plum were the scapegoats post Ireland. Ryan and Schmidt get the plaudits.
So now you're arguing Foster shouldn't take responsibility for the Ireland debacle as it was down to Moar and Plumtree.
Horseshit. He's the head coach. He takes responsibility for the Ireland debacle and gets the credit for winning the RC & Bledisloe (again)
Foster has a 5/4 win ratio this year and by all accounts is still on tract to list 2 of 4 on the EOYT which, in itself, will be another record.
"By all accounts"? So no-one, absolutely no-one, is thinking they'll do better than 50% eh?
You keep swinging and missing.
Mate, trust me, I'm really not trying....
Would it make a difference it you did? Like Foster, probably not.
-
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
Not really. Even the players admitted that the assistants Gary Gold and Dick Muir were ultimately responsible for the success of that era & said De Villiers was pretty useless as a coach.
Every different to Foster then when you consider the high praise he gets from players like Ritchie, Ardie and Sam Whitelock.
Tbf, Mark "never made the playoffs despite having absolute power" Hammett seemed to have plenty of love from the players he didn't send packing.
I've no doubt that perhaps one-on-one Foster has plenty of wisdom to impart. He was a decent player himself and rose through the coaching ranks very quickly. Clearly he has something of value. Unfortunately it's patently obvious that he's not a very good head coach. The evidence obviously being the Chiefs and ABs. If I can give him credit for something it's having at least been humble enough to accept the changes that clearly needed to be made. While they came very belatedly and allowed him to save his job, many would probably have gone the full bottom lip and had a tanty. Maybe he does that in private but I for one feel a hell of alot better with Schmidt and Ryan holding his hand. It's a pretty ridiculous situation but probably the best outcome before handing over to Razor for fresh start (hopefully 🤞) after the RWC.
May be. But it's got bugger-all to do with the ludicrous idea that when the AB's lose or the forwards play like shit, Foster, as Head Coach, should take the blame, but when they win, it's all down to the assistants and nothing to do with the Head Coach.
Moar and Plum were the scapegoats post Ireland. Ryan and Schmidt get the plaudits.
So now you're arguing Foster shouldn't take responsibility for the Ireland debacle as it was down to Moar and Plumtree.
Horseshit. He's the head coach. He takes responsibility for the Ireland debacle and gets the credit for winning the RC & Bledisloe (again)
Foster has a 5/4 win ratio this year and by all accounts is still on tract to list 2 of 4 on the EOYT which, in itself, will be another record.
"By all accounts"? So no-one, absolutely no-one, is thinking they'll do better than 50% eh?
Haven't seen nor heard of anyone thinking we'll do good on the EOYT. Almost worth it though to see you spark out.
Conversely a dominant 100% record would be awesome for the same reason.
-
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Joans-Town-Jones said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
@Machpants said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
The Team was lost prior to Schmidt and Ryan. Now the backs are attacking with purpose, our set piece is looking a lot better.
Once again you're arguing a Head Coach (good or bad) doesn't have much impact on team performance. Which, given the way some on here fetishize Roberston as an AB Head Coach, is a bit illogical - if not weird.
Just because one head coach has fuck all impact now new assistants have been forced on him, does not mean all head coaches do nothing.
I'm not saying I totally agree, but it's not weird. Foster is an ineffective head coach, and his team shit as an abs team ever had been. But now he's been forced to move away from his choices as assistants, the abs are improving.
Sorry, but it's incredibly weird thinking to say a head coach has no impact on results and in the same breath argue a new Head Coach will improve things.
Peter De Villiers as Boks coach (2008-2011) - it was well known that he couldn't coach for shit & the assistants did essentially all the coaching for him. Foster appears much the same.
De Villiers started out OK and the Boks faded badly in 2010-11. So if you are saying his assistants did all the work, you're arguing De Villiers wasn't to blame for those latter poor results either, and his assistants should have carried the can.
Which is a bonkers argument when you look at it.
Not really. Even the players admitted that the assistants Gary Gold and Dick Muir were ultimately responsible for the success of that era & said De Villiers was pretty useless as a coach.
Every different to Foster then when you consider the high praise he gets from players like Ritchie, Ardie and Sam Whitelock.
Tbf, Mark "never made the playoffs despite having absolute power" Hammett seemed to have plenty of love from the players he didn't send packing.
I've no doubt that perhaps one-on-one Foster has plenty of wisdom to impart. He was a decent player himself and rose through the coaching ranks very quickly. Clearly he has something of value. Unfortunately it's patently obvious that he's not a very good head coach. The evidence obviously being the Chiefs and ABs. If I can give him credit for something it's having at least been humble enough to accept the changes that clearly needed to be made. While they came very belatedly and allowed him to save his job, many would probably have gone the full bottom lip and had a tanty. Maybe he does that in private but I for one feel a hell of alot better with Schmidt and Ryan holding his hand. It's a pretty ridiculous situation but probably the best outcome before handing over to Razor for fresh start (hopefully 🤞) after the RWC.
May be. But it's got bugger-all to do with the ludicrous idea that when the AB's lose or the forwards play like shit, Foster, as Head Coach, should take the blame, but when they win, it's all down to the assistants and nothing to do with the Head Coach.
Moar and Plum were the scapegoats post Ireland. Ryan and Schmidt get the plaudits.
So now you're arguing Foster shouldn't take responsibility for the Ireland debacle as it was down to Moar and Plumtree.
Horseshit. He's the head coach. He takes responsibility for the Ireland debacle and gets the credit for winning the RC & Bledisloe (again)
Foster has a 5/4 win ratio this year and by all accounts is still on tract to list 2 of 4 on the EOYT which, in itself, will be another record.
"By all accounts"? So no-one, absolutely no-one, is thinking they'll do better than 50% eh?
Haven't seen nor heard of anyone thinking we'll do good on the EOYT. Almost worth it though to see you spark out.
Conversely a dominant 100% record would be awesome for the same reason.
I'm predicting the reply to this post and will let you know when it lands.
-
-
@mariner4life said in Foster:
@Kruse your reply tells me you embrace mediocrity.
embrace it? I am constantly striving for it!
"Aim low. And miss!"
-
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Foster:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster:
Get a grip. Just because people don't buy into the "Robertson is the Savior and/or the Greatest Rugby Coach in the World" fetish, doesn't mean they have an anti-Robertson bias.
Or if they support Roberson, it doesn't mean they think he is the Savoir/Greatest Coach in the World Fetish, they just think he would do a better job than Foster. The bar isn't that high.
Mind you we had an awful lot were yelling that Rennie should of get the gig too, they seem to of gone quieter lately. I must admit if I had been asked (fortunately they don't ask us plebs) I would of picked Jamie Joseph (but like Rennie aleardy had a gig), but like us all we have favouries.
-
-
@Dan54 I'd still have Rennie or Joseph over Foster. Any time.
I don't have a problem with that NZZP, as I said I liked Joseph, and would have him over Rennie. I think he has made a bit of difference to Japan, actually got them to QF in WC. Rennie I don't dislike by any means, but can't actually see a lot (if any) to Wallabies since he took over, so reserve judgement. But regardless neither were available.
I not for or against Foster either, I wasn't part of board that interviewed him etc, so don't know what or wasn't said to get him appointed. -
Thought this might sum up some of the views here!
-
