@stodders said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:

I'll play devil's advocate here:

Foster's time as head coach with the Chiefs wasn't great. But people can develop and improve if they show that they can learn from past mistakes.

People defending Foster always say this, but it isn't true. Poor coaches never turn into good coaches.

By the time Foster left the Chiefs he had been coaching for well over a decade. If he wasn't good by then, he never was going to be. He showed no upward path then, yet we are meant to believe that he would start showing one twenty years into his career? That is the height of optimism.

While people do learn from past mistakes, they also carry over old ideas and ways from the past that rapidly get out of date. Once you get to a certain amount of experience, the new things you learn generally don't cancel out all the old baggage that you carry.

This has been studied in various fields. Teachers, for example, are best after eight years experience, regardless of how old they were when they started. After that time they generally get worse with added experience.

It's why one of the best things a person who is a bit jaded can do is do something else, even if only for a short while.

Foster is doing exactly what the nay-sayers predicted -- picking favourites he won't drop, having fantastic performances followed by inexplicably bad ones, fielding teams with game plans that are out of date. That's who he is, and more experience is not going to change that.

Can you persuade me by giving examples of coaches who got better after more than a dozen years on the job? They are few and far between. Even great coaches tend to fade with age, rather than get better, which is also contrary to the "you get better with experience" line.

NZ Rugby got cocky. Like the great Auckland run of the 90's, then the great Crusaders run when they persisted with Blackadder, they actually believed that their systems were more important than the people they hired. As long as the man involved knew the system, then he would get results, because the system was so awesome. Someone like Robertson who was obviously going to change the system was actively avoided.

Foster was hired not because he was the best coach, and they knew that, but because he would continue the system. Turns out that their system always depended on having the best coaches after all.

So, as we saw with Blackadder and the Crusaders, a slip in results did not lead to a change in coach. They simply knew the system would win out, so they persisted for eight years of mediocrity. Luckily for them the next coach was from the system too, but good, so they started winning again. They are going to be baffled in Crusader land when the system doesn't work when he goes. The Blues were less lucky. They could not get their heads around why their system didn't give them championships once Graham Henry left. It turns out their much vaunted system required having the best coach, after all. (They didn't even get it once Henry returned and gave them one more championship, they were that pig-headed about it.)

The Chiefs persisted with eight years of Foster. The Crusaders with eight years of Blackadder. The Blues decades of uselessness. That NZ Rugby will come to their senses and realise that the coach is the problem is still some four years away. If we are lucky.

@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.

@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.

@mariner4life said in Foster must go:

I'm just throwing it out there, maybe, just maybe, we lose to Ireland because they have better players than us now. And we, the NZ rugby fan, refuse to believe it because it has never been so.

Foster must be one of the most unlucky bastards ever to live then.

He must have had crap players at the Chiefs, only for Rennie to get lucky and have brilliant ones just as he left.

And then he takes a winning AB side, albeit with a couple of issues, and all the players turn to custard just at the same time! Players who lead Super sides well, only to be headless chooks when playing for him.

Rennie actually has that issue. But his sides still have some structure, whether winning or losing. The ABs don't even know what they are doing half the time.

Foster has done with the ABs exactly what those who watched the Chiefs carefully said would happen. We said he would have favourites that he would not drop, that his selections otherwise would be baffling, that his "game plan" is basically to spread it wide and hope. And worst of all, his teams would be poorly prepared mentally . They weren't lucky guesses.

@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.

@Dan54 said in All Blacks v Ireland - 2nd Test:

Geez reprobate, calm down mate, lol.

He's calm compared to what I want to type!

You win some, you lose some. But when you lose when you used to win, you need to examine what caused it. And Foster simply does not do that. That angers me. A quiet, steaming anger that has been building since he was appointed.

He is leader of one of the best professional teams/franchises on the planet. You expect a fully professional attitude from him. Yet nothing is his fault, even when a disaster unfolds in front of his eyes. He doesn't do what he expects his players to do -- look at their game, see the issues and fix them.

It's not that we are average. It's that nothing is changing, and so we see the same average things time and time again.

@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:

@hooroo

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.

@victor-meldrew said in All Blacks v Ireland, 2021 NH Tour:

@mofitzy_ said in All Blacks v Ireland, 2021 NH Tour:

@victor-meldrew
Players of a known quantity are underperforming, new players don't cut the mustard. That's on the coach.

Or the players just aren't there? The player pool at 9 isn't exactly overflowing and that's not down to Foster

Except it is. Robertson can win Super Trophies with Drummond -- who isn't even in the reckoning for the ABs. Brad Weber can play some amazing rugby, with the right game plan. (I loathe TJP with a passion, and can't way to see the back of him, but that's more about what a tool he is as a person.)

Robertson's hardly a lone exception. We can all cite coaches who just seem to get the best out of players. And other coaches who turn gold into, um, not gold.

It's no good saying that NZ isn't producing the quality of players we used to, when our Super and provincial teams are streaks ahead of everyone else. And when our rejects are starting players for other countries.

Our game plan seems to be, kick it as soon as you get it except in their 22, and hope to score from individual brilliance. It's a shit plan, and it deserves what it got last night. It isn't like Beauden was carving up when he was on, he kicked it even more than Mo'unga. It has to be the plan, not the players.

I don't get the love for Blackadder. Sure he's busy, but Papalii is the same but more accurate.

They will start Cane and Savea for certain. Then someone big to carry the ball, so Ioane or Sotutu. Papalii and Barrett as reserves.

Starting Cane, Savea and Blackadder would be ... interesting. But not in a good way.

@Yeetyaah said in All Blacks v Pumas 1:

Fuck man I'm no Fozzie lover but this reflects on everyone who's part of the team not just him. Calm down and take a step back fellas. We say all this shit but we know next week we'll back our team and if they win then all will be well.

No. Fuck off yourself.

I'm sick of losing to teams we used to never -- never -- lose to. No matter how average we were.

This is down to one man. One man out of his depth. I stopped backing any team he coached decades ago and I'm not going to start now.

@Crucial said in It’s Razor. Robertson New All Blacks coach.:

@Chester-Draws said in It’s Razor. Robertson New All Blacks coach.:

@Kirwan said in It’s Razor. Robertson New All Blacks coach.:

@taniwharugby said in It’s Razor. Robertson New All Blacks coach.:

@Kirwan given preparation seems to be a big part of his successes to date, he has alot of months to get himself prepared for his first naming in what, May 2024?

Geez, that is a long time to wait now...

It's weird having two All Black coaches. Modern times I guess.

We have one coach, with another taking over when he leaves. Most jobs at my work are like that -- we know the replacement well out from the actual change.

How does that differ from when Hansen was clearly going to take over from Henry? Or when Foster was basically certain to take over from Hansen? If anything it is normal procedure now.

The Wyllie-Hart era was much more bizarre.

It’s very different. The examples you use were never locked in until the existing coach had finished and the existing coach had announced that they were retiring.

Sure, it wasn't announced, but that doesn't mean it wasn't locked in. I would have bet any amount of money that Hansen was going to take over from Henry, despite not being a betting man. We all knew it was going to happen. Including you.

Foster wasn't quite so locked in. But oddly all the other high quality candidates didn't wait around, but went out and got what they could. Which suggests that they felt they had no chance.

Foster was happy to take a shoo-in job with all other realistic candidates scared off. Then get an early extension, despite poor performance up to that date. On what basis would can he really complain that he's been treated badly?

@Kirwan said in It’s Razor. Robertson New All Blacks coach.:

@taniwharugby said in It’s Razor. Robertson New All Blacks coach.:

@Kirwan given preparation seems to be a big part of his successes to date, he has alot of months to get himself prepared for his first naming in what, May 2024?

Geez, that is a long time to wait now...

It's weird having two All Black coaches. Modern times I guess.

We have one coach, with another taking over when he leaves. Most jobs at my work are like that -- we know the replacement well out from the actual change.

How does that differ from when Hansen was clearly going to take over from Henry? Or when Foster was basically certain to take over from Hansen? If anything it is normal procedure now.

The Wyllie-Hart era was much more bizarre.

Stevenson might make it, if injuries strike. Can't see anyone else bolting in.

That would imply we were going to change things. Try something new. When was the last time we did that?

I know the new assistants have made a big difference, but we're just doing the same things we have been for eight years, only a bit better now.

We haven't dropped a starting player for poor form since when? A few like Sowakula failed to lock a spot, but the old-timers pretty much have to die.

I'd love to be proved wrong, and have a squad full of new energy and new tactics.

@Dan54 said in All Black captains winning %:

Shows why you can sometimes read too much into stats, I mean loved Buck as captain and player, but he was captaining ABs when the rest of world was so far behind, and so poor in may cases it was stupid. I always thought even the first WC was such a foregone conclusion,

Not that Buck captained the 1st RWC.

Shelford was a remarkable captain, the best I have ever seen, as an on-field captain (because there were some issues in the other parts of the role). Sure the ABs were almost unbeatable anyway, but his sacking saw a period of almost immediate decline, much of that around direction, because the players were largely the same.

North Harbour were in a different league when he played for them. So much more steel.

He did great things with Northampton too.

@Victor-Meldrew said in Pick the next AB coach - two horse race:

Don't really have an opinion between the two, but think NZR will go for Joseph. He seems to fit the NZR mould a bit better.

You might think that the NZR would question their mould though. Perhaps question if continuity is really the way forward.

(I voted Robertson, but I'm not particularly fussed.)

@Dan54 said in Foster, Robertson etc:

@Chester-Draws said in Foster, Robertson etc:

Edit: I have gone from disliking Foster, through despising him, to outright hating what he has done. I may no longer be entirely objective. I no longer care.

I go along with Mariner, you obviously need help, to hate someone you don't know and then to boast publicly about it screams of either needing help, or a 5yo kid has your log in details.

I didn't actually say I hate Foster. I said I hate what he has done (to the ABs).

He seems an amiable man, as a person.

Edit, probably should have also made it clear dislike and despise what he has done.

@Victor-Meldrew said in Foster, Robertson etc:

Don't be daft. We all know if we'd beaten England and got to the final and/or won it, it would be despite Foster. Foster's only ever involved when things go badly.

I know you are taking the piss, but I would reverse it.

When things have gone really badly recently, Foster has been involved.

Our best performances last year do seem to be when others have been able to gain some control.

Edit: I have gone from disliking Foster, through despising him, to outright hating what he has done. I may no longer be entirely objective. I no longer care.

@booboo said in 2023 World Sevens Series:

@Bovidae said in 2023 World Sevens Series:

@Crucial said in 2023 World Sevens Series:

BF 7s took out the final against Oz to balance the books. That's four tourneys in a row!

It was a tight final but Hirini was huge, and saved Miller's Minties moment. Both teams made early handling errors - nerves.

Should that have been a penalty try for deliberate knock on?

Yes, I think so.

If the ball had spilled forward because the tackler ripped the carrier's arms away, then no. But that was a deliberate punch forward.

@Victor-Meldrew

Did no-one notice the massive disaster that was the Black Ferns? Saved only by having Wayne Smith available. Without him our "home" world cup would likely have been an epic disaster.

Did the dance around the Silver Lake deal, that was done, then undone, then done again go un-noticed?

For a while there even our Sevens teams were struggling.

We've managed to lose South Africa from Super Rugby in the last couple of years too. Not that Australia are very happy with us either.

Anyone want to tell me how awesome grass-roots rugby is going in NZ at the moment?

In what sphere does anyone think NZR has done well in the last five years?

@Victor-Meldrew To me it reads as a person with a strongly held opinion on a topic is annoyed that other people are disagreeing with him. That happens to me all the time, because I have strong opinions, but I don't go round calling my opponents "arrogant" for it.

This is not Kremlinology, where the people involved are secretive and the decisions made opaque and trying to work out what is happening is all guesswork.

We are discussing decisions made by people with long track records, who explain their thoughts on national media. In a country small enough that many of us actually know some of them.

We all know by now that NZR is a train wreck as an organisation, and I seriously think the Fern -- in this instance -- would have managed this whole thing better than it has. So I'm not going to defer to the NZR as being experts. They have blown that long ago.