Planet Rugby Forum

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.

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.

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.

He must have been pretty good to offset Foster, right?

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.

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

8/8 Wales!?

Wilderbeast wrote:8/8 Wales!?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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).

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.

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)

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

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.

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.

Yeah I agree McAlister was first choice but there was a contingent in the cheap seats that were never convinced.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Laurie Mains is our greatest and unluckiest coach.

Hansen subbing Barrett off for Cane at halftime was an admission that he cocked it up.

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)

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

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.

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.

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 3 all-time greatest coach. Changed the way the game was played.

J Man wrote: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)

B.Smith is a walk-up start for any team in world rugby, including the ABs. All-time great player.