I'm a teacher. I prefer to stay anonymous to avoid kids stumbling across me on-line.
@canefan said in Lions v Hurricanes (SF):
Apart from the sitter he dropped in Lions III I thought he was busy and enthusiastic and generally played quite well
"Busy and enthusiastic" are what we say about boys in teams when, actually, they are a little bit shit.
@taniwharugby said in NH ditch Junior rep rugby teams...:
I struggle to understand the drivers, how is removing that representative opportunity for the better quality kids going to enhance their enjoyment of the game?
My experience is that junior rep rugby doesn't target the better kids, so I have quite a lot of sympathy for the idea. Junior reps are the kids that have played the longest and/or are the earlier developers and/or play for the best teams and coaches. As a kid who was at the wrong end of the year, I thought I was much worse at rugby than I was, whereas it was merely that I was close to 11 when the "stars" were almost 13. At that age it's a huge matter.
As a guy who has seen literally thousands of kids flow through from junior rep rugby into secondary school rugby, I don't see any link between who is good at 18 and who is good at 12. I've seen so many kids come into school all pumped up because they played Roller Mills or such, only to find that they were merely early developers. Meanwhile some quiet kid who develops late, but has a good work ethic, is a much better player. Our school stopped selecting teams based on previous rep experience and went with who trained harder.
There's quite a few on this site that argue even 1st XV rugby continues the practice of merely selecting the biggest players, rather than the most skillful, which is why Auckland can't convert its massive base into provincial dominance.
And the worst part of the rep system is that it ingrains any selections based on age/size etc. Those kids get to play more and get the best coaches. Meanwhile some late developer gets only half the rugby and less good coaching.
This is not to say that NH is right. Sometimes a bad system is better than no system. I simply do not think that being selected as a rep, aged 11, is any guide to anything much.
Much guess will be that it will have zero long term effect on NH rugby.
@No-Quarter said in Bledisoe #1:
The fact that they’ve picked a team that so many on the Fern wanted makes me nervous. As a collective we have a strong proven record of not having a fucking clue what we are talking about.
You say that. And yet when I have to listen to the shit spouted at work about rugby I think fondly of Fern wisdom.
We might always be wrong. But not half as wrong as most fans.
@no-quarter said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
@hooroo said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
@duluth said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
Yes, that did seem to help
One year was it?
Because I was told to judge Tana after three years.. we're almost at three years now.. now I'm told Tana should get another 2 years added to his contract
The strange thing is I can't find a Blues fan that wants that
Yes and also Razor did it in his first year too!
Boyd got the Canes a home final in his first year, then won the thing the next year. Fair bit of evidence to suggest a quality coach can make a big difference.
I think the evidence the coach makes a big difference is overwhelming.
I did a check and iirc anyone who won a Super Rugby title did it in their first three years, and for most the turn-around was immediately obvious. McKenzie at the Reds, the most dramatic.
Foster managed a final in his fifth? year, and the team was crap the next, showing it was fluke.
Even great coaches tended to get worse over time, rather than better. (I suspect they don't get worse, just that the opposition know what to expect, so the results slip a bit.)
There is zero chance, based on previous history, that Tana can turn the ship around.
The Chiefs kept hoping Foster would deliver, the Crusaders kept hoping Blackadder would. They didn't, and neither will Tana.
@Jaguares4real said in TRC: Pumas v All Blacks:
So do you go all out with a shallow playing pool + by far worst travel schedule in world rugby or do you pick & choose what games you prioritise
The Pumas do not have "by far the worst travel schedule". You're on a group from New Zealand for goodness sake. We're literally the furthest away from all the other rugby playing nations. Your NH tour tours are both much less far and with far less time difference.
Argentina in the Rugby Championship have one more long trip than NZ or Australia, but there are direct flights to each country involved. South Africa have to travel just as far as you.
The difference is that we win away from home, so people assume that we don't have travel issues. That's not true -- we've merely learnt to overcome them. The Pumas problem is not the travel, but that they don't play well away from home, regardless of the travel time involved.
I find it difficult, in fact nearly impossible, to believe Warner is a nice guy off the field. Nice guys simply do not do what he does.
They don't spout anger relentlessly and the go all cry-baby when the retaliation is equally brutal. They don't cheat as soon as they look like losing. They don't spout cant about how they'd never do something and then do it. They don't use their kids as shields.
I'm sure he's a decent seeming fellow in the pub when everything is going well and everyone's having a laugh. I'm sure he loves his wife and family. I can even believe he's remorseful, for the moment.
But he'll be just like he always was after a season or two.
So, while I have not particularly laid into him in this thread, I don't think he's been hard done by.
People have been asking him to behave better for years and not only has he ignored them, but he has laughed at the requests. He himself showed little compassion for others caught ball tampering.
I'll show him exactly the same regard as he shows others.
If reports are even half to be believed, I will be joined by his team mates.
@dingo said in Crusaders v Hurricanes - SF:
Holy shit.
I just saw the Crusaders forward pack and compared it to the Canes.
Only a complete meltdown from the Crusaders and FABCRR (Future AB Coach Razor Robertson) could lose them this game.
Canes complete underdogs.
Todd Blackadder had forward packs like that, including McCaw.
Robertson has taken them from contenders to unbackable favourites in two years.
@snowy said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
@jegga said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
Ah , what I like to call the schadenfreude thread .
There actually hasn't been a lot of gloating - mostly just us Blues guys wallowing in our own misery.
Twenty odd years back I moved to Auckland, when it was towards the end of its enormous run of victories. Back then far too many Aucklanders were saying that their dominance was good for NZ. I heard many argue that "strong Auckland means strong All Blacks", as if we should all not just lose to them, but enjoy losing.
The ARU gloated about how it's systems ensured that they remained on top. They refused to accept that it was largely due to three very good coaches in a row, and that one wrong move might bring it all down.
I built up a sizeable dislike for Auckland rugby, whereas I had previously grudging admired how good they were. I never ever felt the same way about Canterbury and the Crusader dominance because they never gloated half so much. Sure they tend to over-rate their players who get an armchair ride, but they never acted as if they had a right to win.
As a result, although I largely kept it to myself, I have thoroughly enjoyed the drop in fortunes of Auckland and The Blues. It has given me great joy every time they finished down the table. Especially as the All Blacks have gotten better as they have got worse.
But even I have now had enough. It's no longer fun.
Are they going to keep NMS? He was a marginal pick before, and hasn't exactly showered himself in glory since.
If Ben Smith is too slow and out of form at wing, then he's too slow and out of form at fullback. Personally, I don't think he's either, but he can't be quick at fullback and slow at wing.
I prefer Beauden at fullback, because he has space.
The issues in that game were
I'm not sure 1) and 3) can be fixed. Adding Ardie Surveyor helps with 2), but only if they are prepared to try something new.
I'm another who is strongly reminded of 1991.
Unlike Handball, AFL or Weight-lifting, people will get badly hurt pretty quickly if ex-men are allowed to play rugby.
Fallon Fox got to break people's heads, but at least those people were actual fighters. And it was all over in 6 bouts, before she could repeat that too often.
I think they should just change the grades. It should be Open and XY. Not "womens" rugby, but "XY Rugby". It's not pretty, but it makes it clear who gets to enter and who doesn't.
That RugbyPass article sets out on for the "for" arguments for Foster. But not even his greatest detractor (i.e. me) thinks the man is completely without merit.
What it omits entirely is the other 90% of being a head coach -- selection (both players and support staff), management of personal issues, game preparation, dealing with the bad times etc.
I have little doubt that the 2020 ABs will turn on some master-classes in attacking rugby.
@No-Quarter said in All Black Coach - Ian Foster:
I recall everyone on here being stoked with the team we selected in Perth...
It was a decent team. I don't think the players were the problem.
The Fern, collectively, had been banging on about how poor our game plans had been since the Lions series.
I maintain that we were right -- it was in the coaching box that we failed, not the players on the pitch.
@ACT-Crusader said in All Black Coach - Ian Foster:
Conversely there were high expectations heading into 2000 after the Wayne Smith appointment and things didn’t really pan out that well....
Wayne Smith is the first guy I would put on any coaching list. He's absolutely brilliant.
Our assessment of his ability was correct except one rather key flaw -- he isn't a head coach.
Well that will take all the emotional stress out of watching the All Blacks.
I learned to not care about the Chiefs after the first three years of Foster there, because caring just set you up for major disappointment. (Even when we made the final I recorded it for later, because there was no way I was going to get shafted again, Charlie Brown style. It was a wise decision, as it happens.)
It should make the Bledisloe rather more interesting.
@Bovidae said in Same old Russians, always cheating:
The Russians have become a modern-day East Germany and then tried to frame and discredit the whistleblowers when the truth became known. Corruption started from the top.
I don't think it is counted as "corruption" when it is a state organised activity -- technically the Russian doping agency would be corrupt if it didn't do its government policy, and actually tested properly. This is much worse than corruption, because it can't be rooted out until the government changes its policy.
They need to ban all Russian athletes until Russia agrees to play by the same rules as everyone else.
One way round it would be to exempt the current Russian athletes from the normal country qualifications. Once established as drug free by a country that actually tests properly, they could then compete for that country.
That would drive Putin crazy, because all his athletes would then be winning medals for other countries. Even worse if they won medals for other countries only because they were expertly doped by Russians!
Dropping out early seems weak to me.
Where I work, you apply for jobs you want to show willing, even if another candidate is likely to get the position. That way the people in charge know that you are interested in promotion, and consider pathways to get you there.
Neither Rennie nor Joseph can be so busy at the moment that they can't take a few days to be interviewed by NZR surely.
@mariner4life said in [Poll] Next All Black Coach:
@KiwiMurph said in [Poll] Next All Black Coach:
how underwhelming.
JJ had 10 years coaching Super rugby and won once.
True, but with the Highlanders.
Not a feat anyone else has come close to (except perhaps the Queensland Reds win under Ewen McKenzie -- from rabble to winners back to rabble).
Even Rennie had more to work with when he came in.
@junior said in 2020 All Blacks Squad:
@taniwharugby said in 2020 All Blacks Squad:
@Chris-B agree to a point, but there were concerns with our small backs v SA in pool play, but it didnt affect us.
I expect Jack could put on a few more kgs easily enough without affecting him.
there arent too many big bruisers playing the mid-field in NZ presently who look like they will make the step up in the next year or 2...
It doesn't seem there's too many big bruisers in NZ fullstop! Given the style of play our domestic teams play, half the battle for most players seems to be their ability to keep (especially in the forwards). Couple that with the increased focus on skill speed (especially with catching and passing) in the last 10-15 years, this naturally favours smaller guys who don't carry as much bulk and can move more quickly. All of the sudden, you're naturally selecting against big guys and they start getting phased out of the game at lower and lower levels.
I think this is wrong. Our forward packs, both at franchise and national level aren't smaller than their opponents. Sometimes a bit shorter, but rarely lighter.
With regards to backs, we have lots of big boys. We just play them on the wing, whereas other countries play them in the centres. You'd be pressed to argue that the Bok backline was big if you look outside the centres.
Reiko Ioane will be bigger than most of the guys he is marking, by some distance. It was just unfortunate that his form disappeared this year, or we would have had him to use a battering ram in the midfield. (We use wingers all the time for this role in NZ, because so often they're our biggest backs.)
@rotated said in [Poll] Next All Black Coach:
If it goes well; the NZRU have shown they will honour succession, and if things go badly there is still time/opportunity to come back (Smith, Mitch if he had wanted IMO).
There are some areas where bodies have to respect previous decisions, because it enhances trust. You don't shit on your present sponsors because you know that will affect later potential partners' willingness to trust you.
But the people who are making the decision this year aren't bound to select the coach based on how previous panels decided. The panel are different people. The applicants are different people with different histories. The All Blacks are in a different situation from previous years.
@Tim said in [Poll] Next All Black Coach:
- Ian Foster
Eight years as Steve Hansen's right hand man hands Foster the argument for continuity, one that has worked for the All Blacks since 2008.
Chance of being involved: Highly likely
The All Blacks have been on the slide since the peak of 2015. I was rather hoping that the losses to Ireland, the Lions, the recent thrashing by the Aussies etc, the narrowing of the gap by the Boks had been remedied by the RWC. Dry powder and all that.
But they hadn't fixed the problems, and our direction will continue downwards if we go with the "continuity" candidate. Why anyone would be happy with that is beyond me.
I recall Blackadder taking the reins at the Crusaders as a continuity candidate of a system that brought constant success -- except it didn't.