Chat Forum
It is currently Sun Dec 15, 2019 7:16 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 216 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 4:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12914
In the pantheon of AB coaches?

He has a better record than any modern day national coach (only bettered by The Needle in history). He ended up with the same record, technically slightly better, than the revered Sir Ted at RWCs - whose success he was obviously part of. He failed to win a Lions tour, but won 6 out of 8 Championships. He lost to Ireland for the first time.

Is he more likely to be judged by the results gained during the Wayne Smith-assisted period? Is it more important how to conclude your career (eg ultimate success for Henry, failure for Shag)? Or will he be judged by the quality of ABs brought through during his era?

Discuss.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 4:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11202
I think he'll be ranked lower than he deserves based on how it ended due to the unparalleled success in a long era that he was a key part of anyway.

However, and attn Booji, despite my feeling on the above I will never stop being angry and saying I told you so with the selection of a Barrett over Cane.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 4:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3493
By mere involvement you'd have to include his entire All Black career IMO. Hard to argue a couple world cups, a couple Lions series for a positive balance, and however many tri-nations/Rugby Championships won. Not to mention seeding the entire globe with quality players having taken some All Black skill with them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 4:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 8:46 am
Posts: 516
He coached in a weak era of international rugby and was exposed once the other teams became good again so it is hard to say tbh.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 4:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4947
He must have been pretty good to offset Foster, right?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4751
And
Wilderbeast wrote:
He must have been pretty good to offset Foster, right?


And having to deal with an average team 2015-19...

I personally think he’s - in totality - as good as Ted. Which probably makes in top 3-5 All Black coaches ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8316
Right up there. Probably first due to his longevity. He had to operate in the post-McCaw/Carter era and his assistants dropped in quality post-2017. However, I think Henry's record against the top-tier teams is slightly superior given the Lions results and not losing to quite a few of them. Hansen has a better record against the RC teams.

(1) Steve Hansen - 86% - longevity; world cup; 8/8 Bleds; 6/8 RC;
12-2-1 RSA
18-3-2 Aust
15-0 Arg
6-2 Eng
6-2 Ire
7-0 Wal
3-0 Scot
10-0 Fra
1-1-1 Lions

(2) Sir Graham Henry - 85% - world cup; lions; 8/8 Bleds; 5/8 TN;
12-8 RSA
19-5 Aust
3-0 Arg
9-0 Eng
7-0 Ire
8-0 Wal
4-0 Scot
9-2 Fra
3-0 Lions

(3) Fred Allen - 100% record from 14-0 tests

(4) Sir Brian Lochore - 82% record 9-3 tests


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4947
8/8 Wales!? :uhoh:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8316
Wilderbeast wrote:
8/8 Wales!? :uhoh:


Changed that now. It originally meant 8 out of 8 against Wales but realised that was a bit confusing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5436
1st coach to lose to Ireland in over 100 years marks him down, then loses twice. Mediocre v Lions. Willing to sacrifice wins in the RC in order to prepare for the RWC was poor, I thought. Not what we want from the ABs. Some wins were against poor Bok and Wob teams over the years. RWC win was with prolly the best AB team to walk the park, with GOAT and GOAT2 in the team. Willingness to stick with a lame captain in Read. Failed to deliver a settled RWC team, and shat the bed with selection in the SF.

Culminating in a piss poor performance in the SF, when the ABs were very lucky not to lose by 30 nil +.

I´d rank him about 5th best, behind Needle, Ted, Lochore, Gleeson.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3669
Judged at the end of 2016 RC he was a god amongst coaches.

To win the world cup, then lose Richie, Dan, Ma'a, Conrad, Woodcock, Mealamu, Milner-Skudder, Messam, Slade, Franks, and Vito yet go on the sweep the Rugby Championship and Bledisloe was out of this world and unexpected.

That 2016 sweep might just have been his greatest career achievement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:50 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5279
UncleFB wrote:
I told you so with the selection of a Barrett over Cane.


He has f#@ked his legacy with that call and that is how he will be remembered. It was the Cullen at centre of the 2010s.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2136
Location: Gippsland
He was better than Ted imo. With the personnel Ted had in 2007 he should have won with ease but made horrible, horrible decisions in the lead up and during that comp, worse than Shag ever did so I’d rank him #1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6157
Despite losing to Ireland twice, shitting the bed v England in the SF he won 2015 RWC and kept the RC in 2016 despite losing the core of his team. Not the best coach but a bloody good one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11202
trapper wrote:
He was better than Ted imo. With the personnel Ted had in 2007 he should have won with ease but made horrible, horrible decisions in the lead up and during that comp, worse than Shag ever did so I’d rank him #1.

Really? Should Ted have had a third 10 on the bench and a captain other then McCaw?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4947
UncleFB wrote:
trapper wrote:
He was better than Ted imo. With the personnel Ted had in 2007 he should have won with ease but made horrible, horrible decisions in the lead up and during that comp, worse than Shag ever did so I’d rank him #1.

Really? Should Ted have had a third 10 on the bench and a captain other then McCaw?


Possibly referring to the extensive rotation?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11202
Wilderbeast wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
trapper wrote:
He was better than Ted imo. With the personnel Ted had in 2007 he should have won with ease but made horrible, horrible decisions in the lead up and during that comp, worse than Shag ever did so I’d rank him #1.

Really? Should Ted have had a third 10 on the bench and a captain other then McCaw?


Possibly referring to the extensive rotation?

Ah right, I'm not sure if the rotation was as big a deal as made out. We were a wing from having our best starting team out there really (aside from a still not fully fit Smith at centre).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12914
yeah, if we'd started Cane we definitely would have beaten a tactically, mentally and physically superior England who'd been planning to face a Cane-lead kiwi backrow for 4 years.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4947
Keith Robinson was never a first choice lock. That was a cute selection to combat the niggle. McAlister also debatable over Mauger (though I think Ted considered McAlister to be no.1)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12914
Wilderbeast wrote:
Keith Robinson was never a first choice lock. That was a cute selection to combat the niggle. McAlister also debatable over Mauger (though I think Ted considered McAlister to be no.1)


Robinson was Ted's preferred lock, he was just injured after his excellent '04 series against England. He had clearly usurped Jack by the time the WC rolled around, having started the crucial Bledisloe decider.

Ted had bigger problems in the centres, obviously


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11202
Wilderbeast wrote:
Keith Robinson was never a first choice lock. That was a cute selection to combat the niggle. McAlister also debatable over Mauger (though I think Ted considered McAlister to be no.1)

I think he was their preferred second lock, but I can't remember how well Jack had been going that year (the NH lot will claim he was never up to anything as he e. I can't remember if he had a good or bad game, but we weren't beaten up in the pack by the frenchies.

McAlister had surpassed Mauger (Mauger didn't really carry on from his early spectacular form in 2003) and was our main attacking threat on the day so really there is no debate. ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11202
naki wrote:
yeah, if we'd started Cane we definitely would have beaten a tactically, mentally and physically superior England who'd been planning to face a Cane-lead kiwi backrow for 4 years.

Oh great, now you're buying into the BS revisionist history of the all conquering England juggernaut that the AB's never had a chance against - so at least we've figured out which of the Naki barrett's you actually like.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4947
Yeah I agree McAlister was first choice but there was a contingent in the cheap seats that were never convinced.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 2:38 am
Posts: 3721
Location: NZ
Lower than Ted for the Ireland losses, the Lions and ........... "That" match against Aus and "That" one against England, both of which I am still trying erase from my mental memory of history.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12914
UncleFB wrote:
naki wrote:
yeah, if we'd started Cane we definitely would have beaten a tactically, mentally and physically superior England who'd been planning to face a Cane-lead kiwi backrow for 4 years.

Oh great, now you're buying into the BS revisionist history of the all conquering England juggernaut that the AB's never had a chance against - so at least we've figured out which of the Naki barrett's you actually like.


It really did not matter who Hansen selected there, we were going to lose. Do you really think swapping out Cane for Barrett slows down their irresistible momentum at all? The lineout would have likely been even less effective. Nothing much changed when he came on in the second half, we were still losing collisions and being forced into making untold errors.

Hansen's problem was strategy and attitude, not personnel. As much as Cane can be dominant at the tackle (as is Barrett when on his game), he wouldn't - and couldn't - slow the tide.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:09 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5279
naki wrote:
yeah, if we'd started Cane we definitely would have beaten a tactically, mentally and physically superior England who'd been planning to face a Cane-lead kiwi backrow for 4 years.


Who the hell made that claim :?

I think we still would have lost with Cane starting, but we didn't give ourselves the best chance of winning.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12914
UncleFB wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
Keith Robinson was never a first choice lock. That was a cute selection to combat the niggle. McAlister also debatable over Mauger (though I think Ted considered McAlister to be no.1)

I think he was their preferred second lock, but I can't remember how well Jack had been going that year (the NH lot will claim he was never up to anything as he e. I can't remember if he had a good or bad game, but we weren't beaten up in the pack by the frenchies.

McAlister had surpassed Mauger (Mauger didn't really carry on from his early spectacular form in 2003) and was our main attacking threat on the day so really there is no debate. ;)


McAlister had definitely played his way into the team, but having Mils outside him wasn't much help. They badly needed a fit Conrad to organise the defense and unleash the back three (who really should have included Howlett).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12914
J Man wrote:
naki wrote:
yeah, if we'd started Cane we definitely would have beaten a tactically, mentally and physically superior England who'd been planning to face a Cane-lead kiwi backrow for 4 years.


Who the hell made that claim :?

I think we still would have lost with Cane starting, but we didn't give ourselves the best chance of winning.


Uncle FB

Some people can't seem to accept that England showed themselves to be a better prepared, more coherent and simply better rugby team on the day. Hansen's selection change was logical, and it didn't contribute to the loss


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8316
Yeah I agree. It wasn't personnel as much as strategy. Wayne Smith said as much in the media this week. What worked so well against Ireland fluffed them against England.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11202
naki wrote:
J Man wrote:
naki wrote:
yeah, if we'd started Cane we definitely would have beaten a tactically, mentally and physically superior England who'd been planning to face a Cane-lead kiwi backrow for 4 years.


Who the hell made that claim :?

I think we still would have lost with Cane starting, but we didn't give ourselves the best chance of winning.


Uncle FB

Some people can't seem to accept that England showed themselves to be a better prepared, more coherent and simply better rugby team on the day. Hansen's selection change was logical, and it didn't contribute to the loss

I think it was illogical and the manner of the loss confirms that.

I think it's rubbish to suggest a positional change that had an effect on the playing style of three different positions (negating one of our main attacking weapons) wouldn't effect a teams ability to win a game, even setting aside the fact that our premier defensive player was off the field at a time when the opposition made easy in-roads.

Auckman: Yeah that playing behind the line tactic was silly against England, what was worse was that at times in the game we didn't use it and actually started to make ground.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2136
Location: Gippsland
UncleFB wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
trapper wrote:
He was better than Ted imo. With the personnel Ted had in 2007 he should have won with ease but made horrible, horrible decisions in the lead up and during that comp, worse than Shag ever did so I’d rank him #1.

Really? Should Ted have had a third 10 on the bench and a captain other then McCaw?


Possibly referring to the extensive rotation?

Ah right, I'm not sure if the rotation was as big a deal as made out. We were a wing from having our best starting team out there really (aside from a still not fully fit Smith at centre).


It was a big deal imo, some dodgy selections and the fact Ted decided it would be a good idea for the ABs to have a holiday in the South of France or something in the middle of the comp to relax or some bullshit. Look, my memory of 2007 is not the best as I have spent years wiping it from said memory but I do remember it being a fecking disaster for all sorts of reasons. We had the team to win that WC but Ted blew it big time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:00 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 17299
Hard to say. He took over a world champion team and kept them at the top. Played great rugby. Against him is the team was built by Ted and some record losses to Ireland, England (2012) and Australia. On the plus side, the oppositions have been the strongest in history - equal in strength and conditioning at least.

Deciding factor: Coach of the greatest team playing the best rugby in the strongest era. I rank him number one overall.


Last edited by CrazyIslander on Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:58 am
Posts: 2544
Location: P-town
Laurie Mains is our greatest and unluckiest coach.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:22 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5279
Hansen subbing Barrett off for Cane at halftime was an admission that he cocked it up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:25 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5279
Imagine the team you'd pick with hindsight for the England game:

14. B Smith
12. SBW
7. Cane
3. Franks
2. Coles (bit unfair, Taylor was playing well and only poor in that England game)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 250
Big losses to England and Australia sour his record. Losong is one thing, getting trounced is something else.
Semi loss is neither here nor there as the squad itself was on par with several other teams - whether you blame him for that is up for debate.

Think he benefited from a pretty shambolic setup on the boks and wallabies at different times post 2011.

Biggest thing against him for me is the lions series, it should never have been that close.

Sounds like a lot of negatives but he still had a great overall record and they played good rugby at times - top 4 spot for him


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:29 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 17299
J Man wrote:
Hansen subbing Barrett off for Cane at halftime was an admission that he cocked it up.

Hansen admitted it after the game.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:34 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am
Posts: 17299
Monkey Magic wrote:
Big losses to England and Australia sour his record. Losong is one thing, getting trounced is something else.
Semi loss is neither here nor there as the squad itself was on par with several other teams - whether you blame him for that is up for debate.

Think he benefited from a pretty shambolic setup on the boks and wallabies at different times post 2011.

Biggest thing against him for me is the lions series, it should never have been that close.

Sounds like a lot of negatives but he still had a great overall record and they played good rugby at times - top 4 spot for him

Of the Lions, SBW red card plus Warburton managing to reverse a penalty were situation beyond Hansen's control.

Shouldn't have been that close? Some of those Lions players are the greatest produced by their countries.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 8:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4947
CrazyIslander wrote:
Monkey Magic wrote:
Big losses to England and Australia sour his record. Losong is one thing, getting trounced is something else.
Semi loss is neither here nor there as the squad itself was on par with several other teams - whether you blame him for that is up for debate.

Think he benefited from a pretty shambolic setup on the boks and wallabies at different times post 2011.

Biggest thing against him for me is the lions series, it should never have been that close.

Sounds like a lot of negatives but he still had a great overall record and they played good rugby at times - top 4 spot for him

Of the Lions, SBW red card plus Warburton managing to reverse a penalty were situation beyond Hansen's control.

Shouldn't have been that close? Some of those Lions players are the greatest produced by their countries.


And the jumping into a tackle penalty. Can’t forget that :((


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Posts: 16385
Location: Perth
Top 3 all-time greatest coach. Changed the way the game was played.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 216 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bindi, CrazyIslander, DOB, flaggETERNAL, Ghost-Of-Nepia, Google Adsense [Bot], J Man, MungoMan, Tehui and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group