Chat Forum
It is currently Sun Aug 09, 2020 2:35 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 156 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 3:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12879
Location: Coalfalls
Dan54. wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
No one is saying Foster should not be picked solely on his RWC performance though. There is far more to it than that. NZers can accept coaches who lost the rwc (Henry). But Henry gave us two of our most dominant years ever in 05 and 06. Has foster done anything for us?


Surely current Foster should be compared where Henry was in 2004? Or Hansen in 2012?

This is PR elan, you know sensible posts like this are going to be shouted down!!

Sod me, it appears I’m losing the plot. Or was ripped off in re my last pair of specs.

I read ‘This is PR elan’ and took it as a deliberate mis-spelling of eland since you were, so I thought, responding to Wilderbeast, that name itself being deliberately mis-spelled.

I’d already lined up my nitpicky response - wildebeests are gnus, not elands - before realising it was edf you were actually replying to. So now I feel like an idiot and it’s all your fault so you should probably go and get fúcked. :x


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 3:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:30 am
Posts: 133
booji boy wrote:
deverix wrote:
The continuation of Henry's systems/structures. The true mark of a coach is what happens in those first few years after they've left.


:uhoh: Hmm... I wish Henry's systems had worked as well for the Blues in 1999 and 2004.


Super Rugby campaigns (back in the inaugural Super 12) were monumental slogs and had to be viewed individually, the competition format were short sprints, played against only the strongest of sides, week in and week out, absolutely zero reprieve for coaches at any time.

Graham Henry's win percentage with the Blues was 83%, this was a staggering 48% higher than the coaches that followed: Jed Rowlands 36%, Frank Oliver 36%, Gordan Hunter was next best at 54%..

Sir Ted indeed..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 8:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:30 am
Posts: 133
jdogscoop wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:
deverix wrote:
Hansen simply inherited Henry's systems/structures. Henry was the man who lead the way.

Ted was a true pioneer and visionary, the mark he left was unrivalled, from Wales, Pumas, The Blues and Auckland. Every team he assisted became significantly better off than he found them.

The same cannot be said for Hansen. He left the All Blacks in a far worse state than he found them.

Similar to Eddie Jones, Henry was a brilliant tactician and shrewd backs coach. Later transformed the Pumas attack going into the 2015 WC, historic maiden wins over South Africa and Australia between 2013-2015 as Pumas assistant. Even came back to assist in 2018 which coincided with Auckland's first NPC title in 13 years.

Ted had the vision and foresight to convert Carter into an eventual world class first-five, when everyone else, including Crusaders coach Deans remained adamant his best position would forever be 12, where Carter was playing all of his rugby for the Crusaders.

Eddie Jones for one views Graham Henry in the most-highest regard among all NZ coaches.

Henry is the greatest All Black coach, while Hansen is 3rd at best. And that's being generous.


Nice post, Luke McAllister.

Huh?


Henry and McAllister were very close. I'm not sure whether they were lovers, but they were at a minimum BFFs.


McAllister was such an underrated player in his day.

Speaking of lovers, I think you just described Hansen's relationship with the Barrett's.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 9:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12676
jdogscoop wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:
deverix wrote:
Hansen simply inherited Henry's systems/structures. Henry was the man who lead the way.

Ted was a true pioneer and visionary, the mark he left was unrivalled, from Wales, Pumas, The Blues and Auckland. Every team he assisted became significantly better off than he found them.

The same cannot be said for Hansen. He left the All Blacks in a far worse state than he found them.

Similar to Eddie Jones, Henry was a brilliant tactician and shrewd backs coach. Later transformed the Pumas attack going into the 2015 WC, historic maiden wins over South Africa and Australia between 2013-2015 as Pumas assistant. Even came back to assist in 2018 which coincided with Auckland's first NPC title in 13 years.

Ted had the vision and foresight to convert Carter into an eventual world class first-five, when everyone else, including Crusaders coach Deans remained adamant his best position would forever be 12, where Carter was playing all of his rugby for the Crusaders.

Eddie Jones for one views Graham Henry in the most-highest regard among all NZ coaches.

Henry is the greatest All Black coach, while Hansen is 3rd at best.


Nice post, Luke McAllister.

Huh?


Henry and McAllister were very close. I'm not sure whether they were lovers, but they were at a minimum BFFs.

That’s plain f-ing stupid. You’d love him if he was a tiny islander 10 (see I can meet your stupid with stupid).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:30 am
Posts: 133
UncleFB wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:
deverix wrote:
Hansen simply inherited Henry's systems/structures. Henry was the man who lead the way.

Ted was a true pioneer and visionary, the mark he left was unrivalled, from Wales, Pumas, The Blues and Auckland. Every team he assisted became significantly better off than he found them.

The same cannot be said for Hansen. He left the All Blacks in a far worse state than he found them.

Similar to Eddie Jones, Henry was a brilliant tactician and shrewd backs coach. Later transformed the Pumas attack going into the 2015 WC, historic maiden wins over South Africa and Australia between 2013-2015 as Pumas assistant. Even came back to assist in 2018 which coincided with Auckland's first NPC title in 13 years.

Ted had the vision and foresight to convert Carter into an eventual world class first-five, when everyone else, including Crusaders coach Deans remained adamant his best position would forever be 12, where Carter was playing all of his rugby for the Crusaders.

Eddie Jones for one views Graham Henry in the most-highest regard among all NZ coaches.

Henry is the greatest All Black coach, while Hansen is 3rd at best.


Nice post, Luke McAllister.

Huh?


Henry and McAllister were very close. I'm not sure whether they were lovers, but they were at a minimum BFFs.

That’s plain f-ing stupid. You’d love him if he was a tiny islander 10 (see I can meet your stupid with stupid).


That 'tiny islander' is our best 10 since Carter (and potentially better)..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12676
deverix wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:
Nice post, Luke McAllister.

Huh?


Henry and McAllister were very close. I'm not sure whether they were lovers, but they were at a minimum BFFs.

That’s plain f-ing stupid. You’d love him if he was a tiny islander 10 (see I can meet your stupid with stupid).


That 'tiny islander' is our best 10 since Carter (and potentially better)..

Jesus dude, I had your back and you've gone stupider. :lol:

Anyway, it's JDog so Mo'unga isn't his original object of 'tiny islander' affection.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 8671
UncleFB wrote:
deverix wrote:
That 'tiny islander' is our best 10 since Carter (and potentially better)..

Jesus dude, I had your back and you've gone stupider. :lol:

Anyway, it's JDog so Mo'unga isn't his original object of 'tiny islander' affection.


:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:30 am
Posts: 133
As far-fetched as it sounds right now, I certainly wouldn't rule it out.

Carter missed a huge number of games from his best years sitting on the sidelines.

Mo'unga is much less injury prone than Carter and still has his best years ahead of him.

At the age of 26, Mo'unga has won 4 NPC titles, 3 Super Rugby titles and so far manages more tries and try-assists per game than Carter did even in his prime.

Carter's defensive game puts him higher in the meantime, but Mo'unga has time to improve that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12676
deverix wrote:
As far-fetched as it sounds right now, I certainly wouldn't rule it out.

Carter missed a huge number of games from his best years sitting on the sidelines.

Mo'unga is much less injury prone than Carter and still has his best years ahead of him.

At the age of 26, Mo'unga has won 4 NPC titles, 3 Super Rugby titles and so far manages more tries and try-assists per game than Carter did even in his prime.

Carter's defensive game puts him higher in the meantime, but Mo'unga has time to improve that.

Dude, you're drunk, step away from either the alcohol or the keyboard.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 11:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:30 am
Posts: 133
UncleFB wrote:
deverix wrote:
As far-fetched as it sounds right now, I certainly wouldn't rule it out.

Carter missed a huge number of games from his best years sitting on the sidelines.

Mo'unga is much less injury prone than Carter and still has his best years ahead of him.

At the age of 26, Mo'unga has won 4 NPC titles, 3 Super Rugby titles and so far manages more tries and try-assists per game than Carter did even in his prime.

Carter's defensive game puts him higher in the meantime, but Mo'unga has time to improve that.

Dude, you're drunk, step away from either the alcohol or the keyboard.


Jesus Christ. All I'm saying is that it's possible. In sport you can't rule most things out..

Let's say Mo'unga plays till 33.. 7 years from now is a long time. Who knows what will happen. By then he may well could've bagged 3 Super Rugby titles and collected Rugby World Cup winners medal.

Until then Carter remains the undisputed GOAT first-five, nothing wrong with having a bit of imagination.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5950
Jordie Barrett could also be a better 10 than Carter. Plenty of years ahead of him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28681
booji boy wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
deverix wrote:
Also, what's with the myth being plastered around here that Hansen had a 'hugely successful' tenure as All Blacks assistant coach under Henry?

Hansen was largely an ineffective forwards coach for the All Blacks, from day-one had question marks over his worthiness of coaching at international level. He came under intense scrutiny for our abysmal line-out and set-piece against South Africa.

Henry and Smith did all the heavy-lifting. The success of that 2004-2011 period was down to them.

Hansen was never even remotely close to the class of Henry or Smith.


Now this is a post that gives me a good reason to point out silverware is not always the strongest indicator of possible test success. Sometimes it's about being a good fit. I think Robbie Deans was a great coach. His record at the Crusaders was second to none. I think however he was a bad fit for Australia, not that he was incapable at test level. (To be honest this past generation of Australian players no one has got the best out of them).

But it's sometimes about timings, being a good fit and who you are working with. Hansen was a great coach of excellent players, but a poor coach of lesser ones as he showed with Wales. Henry was a better overall coach but never got the All Blacks to perform as well in tournaments as Hansen did. Smith was a rugby super brain but didn't quite work as All Blacks coach. Mitchell is working wonders with England but kiwis hate his tenure in the early 2000's. I have wondered about Gatland, so far his entire career has been him at teams with limited resources and getting more out of them than anyone else could. Helped of course by a great working relationship with Shaun Edwards. Can he be as creative and make as good choices when given a near flawless team that doesn't need his creative brain to fill in or work around the weaknesses.


Are you basing this on 2007 and 2011? In both tournaments we were hamstrung by the loss of the GOAT DC. In the quarter final in 2007 we had built a comfortable lead then lost DC to injury and his very good replacement Nick Evans also went down after about 5 minutes. We still battled away and only lost by 2 points. But yes a very disappointing result.

In 2011 I'm sure our path to victory would have been much smoother if we'd had a fit DC available through to the final as Hansen did in 2011. Look at the pivotal role DC played in righting the ship when we got the wobbles in both the semifinal vs the Boks and the final against the Wallabies. In 2011 we started the semifinal and final with our 3rd choice flyhalf (Cruden) and were down to our 4th choice, Stephen Donald, by halftime. Also the pressure seemed to get to Piri Weepu in that final and he missed all his shots at goal that would have created some much needed breathing room on the scoreboard. A fit DC would most likely have nailed those goal kicks and controlled the match better than the inexperienced Cruden.

Yes 2015 was a magnificent victory for Hansen's team but he was very lucky with injuries and we still only squeaked past the Boks by 2 points.


No doubt you would have done better with DC, but you can hardly complain about Cruden as back-up. It also shows what delights Henry and Hansen had.

Quote:
2019 on the other hand was a dismal failure. A resounding win over Ireland followed by a comprehensive thumping by England in a match in which we barely fired a shot. This performance can't be held up as a better performance in a tournament.

If you are talking Tri Nations/Rugby Championship then I suggest that Henry's team faced much tougher Springbok and Wallaby sides than Hansen's sides did. The Jake White coached Springboks were a formidable team and the Eddie Jones/Robbie Deans coached teams were stronger than the Chieka coached rabble of the past 5 years.


You can't complain that Henry struggled because he had no Carter and then complain the Carter and McCaw less (and Nonu, Conrad Smith and Kaino less) All Blacks where not as good in 2019 and put the blame on the coach. It's not as if they lost to a scrub England team either, it's one that has a number exceptional players in a lot of key positions now (Curry, Underhill, Itoje, kyle sinckler, Vunipola 1 and 2, Daly, May, Tuilagi tc). Remember this si the generation who consistently out performed New Zealand in U20 world cups for a while.

A coach can only do so much. Hansen is a superb coach. I don't think losing to super motivated England stock full of class talent is any indication he got it wrong. Sometimes you have the players who can't do it as consistently no matter who coaches them. I think kiwis who should expect to have some world class players have been spoiled with the sheer all time All Black greatness of players between 2004 and 2015. You have to accept post 2015 no coach can make the All Blacks as consistently invulnerable as they were prior to 2015 and IMO the team might be anoteher step down in 2019 with players retiring and aging now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28681
deverix wrote:
As far-fetched as it sounds right now, I certainly wouldn't rule it out.

Carter missed a huge number of games from his best years sitting on the sidelines.

Mo'unga is much less injury prone than Carter and still has his best years ahead of him.

At the age of 26, Mo'unga has won 4 NPC titles, 3 Super Rugby titles and so far manages more tries and try-assists per game than Carter did even in his prime.

Carter's defensive game puts him higher in the meantime, but Mo'unga has time to improve that.


This has suspicious echo's of Beauden Barrett fluffers in 2016/2017. Carter is either the GOAT or at the very least the best 10 New Zealand ever produced and the best back of his generation.

Mo-Unga is a very good 10, but please don't turn people against him for silly claims.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 11:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28222
Location: Queensland
eldanielfire wrote:
Mo-Unga is a very good 10, but please don't turn people against him for silly claims.


Would you turn against a player because someone on the internet tended towards exaggeration? You must dislike lots of players?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 12:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28681
Ali's Choice wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Mo-Unga is a very good 10, but please don't turn people against him for silly claims.


Would you turn against a player because someone on the internet tended towards exaggeration? You must dislike lots of players?


No, but the internet clearly does end up with people fighting on opposing sides quite frequently when comparisons occur.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 12:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12676
Wilderbeast wrote:
Jordie Barrett could also be a better 10 than Carter. Plenty of years ahead of him.

Don't you start too. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 12:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10477
Location: Texas
This thread title keeps reminding me of the Dad from “Walk Hard: The Dewey Knox Story”.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 12:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12676
eldanielfire wrote:
booji boy wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
deverix wrote:
Also, what's with the myth being plastered around here that Hansen had a 'hugely successful' tenure as All Blacks assistant coach under Henry?

Hansen was largely an ineffective forwards coach for the All Blacks, from day-one had question marks over his worthiness of coaching at international level. He came under intense scrutiny for our abysmal line-out and set-piece against South Africa.

Henry and Smith did all the heavy-lifting. The success of that 2004-2011 period was down to them.

Hansen was never even remotely close to the class of Henry or Smith.


Now this is a post that gives me a good reason to point out silverware is not always the strongest indicator of possible test success. Sometimes it's about being a good fit. I think Robbie Deans was a great coach. His record at the Crusaders was second to none. I think however he was a bad fit for Australia, not that he was incapable at test level. (To be honest this past generation of Australian players no one has got the best out of them).

But it's sometimes about timings, being a good fit and who you are working with. Hansen was a great coach of excellent players, but a poor coach of lesser ones as he showed with Wales. Henry was a better overall coach but never got the All Blacks to perform as well in tournaments as Hansen did. Smith was a rugby super brain but didn't quite work as All Blacks coach. Mitchell is working wonders with England but kiwis hate his tenure in the early 2000's. I have wondered about Gatland, so far his entire career has been him at teams with limited resources and getting more out of them than anyone else could. Helped of course by a great working relationship with Shaun Edwards. Can he be as creative and make as good choices when given a near flawless team that doesn't need his creative brain to fill in or work around the weaknesses.


Are you basing this on 2007 and 2011? In both tournaments we were hamstrung by the loss of the GOAT DC. In the quarter final in 2007 we had built a comfortable lead then lost DC to injury and his very good replacement Nick Evans also went down after about 5 minutes. We still battled away and only lost by 2 points. But yes a very disappointing result.

In 2011 I'm sure our path to victory would have been much smoother if we'd had a fit DC available through to the final as Hansen did in 2011. Look at the pivotal role DC played in righting the ship when we got the wobbles in both the semifinal vs the Boks and the final against the Wallabies. In 2011 we started the semifinal and final with our 3rd choice flyhalf (Cruden) and were down to our 4th choice, Stephen Donald, by halftime. Also the pressure seemed to get to Piri Weepu in that final and he missed all his shots at goal that would have created some much needed breathing room on the scoreboard. A fit DC would most likely have nailed those goal kicks and controlled the match better than the inexperienced Cruden.

Yes 2015 was a magnificent victory for Hansen's team but he was very lucky with injuries and we still only squeaked past the Boks by 2 points.


No doubt you would have done better with DC, but you can hardly complain about Cruden as back-up. It also shows what delights Henry and Hansen had.

Quote:
2019 on the other hand was a dismal failure. A resounding win over Ireland followed by a comprehensive thumping by England in a match in which we barely fired a shot. This performance can't be held up as a better performance in a tournament.

If you are talking Tri Nations/Rugby Championship then I suggest that Henry's team faced much tougher Springbok and Wallaby sides than Hansen's sides did. The Jake White coached Springboks were a formidable team and the Eddie Jones/Robbie Deans coached teams were stronger than the Chieka coached rabble of the past 5 years.


You can't complain that Henry struggled because he had no Carter and then complain the Carter and McCaw less (and Nonu, Conrad Smith and Kaino less) All Blacks where not as good in 2019 and put the blame on the coach. It's not as if they lost to a scrub England team either, it's one that has a number exceptional players in a lot of key positions now (Curry, Underhill, Itoje, kyle sinckler, Vunipola 1 and 2, Daly, May, Tuilagi tc). Remember this si the generation who consistently out performed New Zealand in U20 world cups for a while.

A coach can only do so much. Hansen is a superb coach. I don't think losing to super motivated England stock full of class talent is any indication he got it wrong. Sometimes you have the players who can't do it as consistently no matter who coaches them. I think kiwis who should expect to have some world class players have been spoiled with the sheer all time All Black greatness of players between 2004 and 2015. You have to accept post 2015 no coach can make the All Blacks as consistently invulnerable as they were prior to 2015 and IMO the team might be anoteher step down in 2019 with players retiring and aging now.

He 100% got it wrong. England still might have won if he'd got it right, but that doesn't change the fact he got it wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 12:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12676
deverix wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
deverix wrote:
As far-fetched as it sounds right now, I certainly wouldn't rule it out.

Carter missed a huge number of games from his best years sitting on the sidelines.

Mo'unga is much less injury prone than Carter and still has his best years ahead of him.

At the age of 26, Mo'unga has won 4 NPC titles, 3 Super Rugby titles and so far manages more tries and try-assists per game than Carter did even in his prime.

Carter's defensive game puts him higher in the meantime, but Mo'unga has time to improve that.

Dude, you're drunk, step away from either the alcohol or the keyboard.


Jesus Christ. All I'm saying is that it's possible. In sport you can't rule most things out..

Let's say Mo'unga plays till 33.. 7 years from now is a long time. Who knows what will happen. By then he may well could've bagged 3 Super Rugby titles and collected Rugby World Cup winners medal.

Until then Carter remains the undisputed GOAT first-five, nothing wrong with having a bit of imagination.

Of course nothing is impossible but I'm going to say this is 99% impossible. My imagination is clearly not as strong as yours. ;)

By 26 DC had played nearly 50 tests, had won the IRB player of the year award (one of 3), and put in what many hailed as the best 10 performance ever. I doubt Mo'unga will even better that record let alone the entirety of DC's career.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 12:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28222
Location: Queensland
UncleFB wrote:
He 100% got it wrong. England still might have won if he'd got it right, but that doesn't change the fact he got it wrong.


Yup, not just specifically relating to that match but more broadly across that entire RWC cycle. Constant chopping and changing for no reason - even when players were performing. Constantly experimenting with new combinations. Change for changes sake. We went into the 2019 RWC with no settled and established combinations across our entire squad except for our locks. We had a new look front row, no established backrow, a new halves pairing, an ever-changing midfield, two new wingers and a new-look 15 who still wanted to lead the team from first receiver. That's inexcusable for a team that won as much as we did. Winning allows a coach the luxury to retain players and combinations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 1:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3233
Location: Queensland!
eldanielfire wrote:
A lot of people point to Foster's record pre-All Blacks as evidence he sin't good enough. Is it not possible that since he worked under Hansen he has learnt a lot and those weaknesses he had as a coach have been filled in and the NZU are aware of that? Also Hansen who knows a lot about test rugby agrees? You know, just adding a bit of balance.


Stop trying to de-rail a good witch hunt :x


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 1:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16113
Well at least we can all agree that Foster chose the right player to be captain.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 1:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:30 am
Posts: 133
eldanielfire wrote:
booji boy wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
deverix wrote:
Also, what's with the myth being plastered around here that Hansen had a 'hugely successful' tenure as All Blacks assistant coach under Henry?

Hansen was largely an ineffective forwards coach for the All Blacks, from day-one had question marks over his worthiness of coaching at international level. He came under intense scrutiny for our abysmal line-out and set-piece against South Africa.

Henry and Smith did all the heavy-lifting. The success of that 2004-2011 period was down to them.

Hansen was never even remotely close to the class of Henry or Smith.


Now this is a post that gives me a good reason to point out silverware is not always the strongest indicator of possible test success. Sometimes it's about being a good fit. I think Robbie Deans was a great coach. His record at the Crusaders was second to none. I think however he was a bad fit for Australia, not that he was incapable at test level. (To be honest this past generation of Australian players no one has got the best out of them).

But it's sometimes about timings, being a good fit and who you are working with. Hansen was a great coach of excellent players, but a poor coach of lesser ones as he showed with Wales. Henry was a better overall coach but never got the All Blacks to perform as well in tournaments as Hansen did. Smith was a rugby super brain but didn't quite work as All Blacks coach. Mitchell is working wonders with England but kiwis hate his tenure in the early 2000's. I have wondered about Gatland, so far his entire career has been him at teams with limited resources and getting more out of them than anyone else could. Helped of course by a great working relationship with Shaun Edwards. Can he be as creative and make as good choices when given a near flawless team that doesn't need his creative brain to fill in or work around the weaknesses.


Are you basing this on 2007 and 2011? In both tournaments we were hamstrung by the loss of the GOAT DC. In the quarter final in 2007 we had built a comfortable lead then lost DC to injury and his very good replacement Nick Evans also went down after about 5 minutes. We still battled away and only lost by 2 points. But yes a very disappointing result.

In 2011 I'm sure our path to victory would have been much smoother if we'd had a fit DC available through to the final as Hansen did in 2011. Look at the pivotal role DC played in righting the ship when we got the wobbles in both the semifinal vs the Boks and the final against the Wallabies. In 2011 we started the semifinal and final with our 3rd choice flyhalf (Cruden) and were down to our 4th choice, Stephen Donald, by halftime. Also the pressure seemed to get to Piri Weepu in that final and he missed all his shots at goal that would have created some much needed breathing room on the scoreboard. A fit DC would most likely have nailed those goal kicks and controlled the match better than the inexperienced Cruden.

Yes 2015 was a magnificent victory for Hansen's team but he was very lucky with injuries and we still only squeaked past the Boks by 2 points.


No doubt you would have done better with DC, but you can hardly complain about Cruden as back-up. It also shows what delights Henry and Hansen had.

Quote:
2019 on the other hand was a dismal failure. A resounding win over Ireland followed by a comprehensive thumping by England in a match in which we barely fired a shot. This performance can't be held up as a better performance in a tournament.

If you are talking Tri Nations/Rugby Championship then I suggest that Henry's team faced much tougher Springbok and Wallaby sides than Hansen's sides did. The Jake White coached Springboks were a formidable team and the Eddie Jones/Robbie Deans coached teams were stronger than the Chieka coached rabble of the past 5 years.


You can't complain that Henry struggled because he had no Carter and then complain the Carter and McCaw less (and Nonu, Conrad Smith and Kaino less) All Blacks where not as good in 2019 and put the blame on the coach. It's not as if they lost to a scrub England team either, it's one that has a number exceptional players in a lot of key positions now (Curry, Underhill, Itoje, kyle sinckler, Vunipola 1 and 2, Daly, May, Tuilagi tc). Remember this si the generation who consistently out performed New Zealand in U20 world cups for a while.

A coach can only do so much. Hansen is a superb coach. I don't think losing to super motivated England stock full of class talent is any indication he got it wrong. Sometimes you have the players who can't do it as consistently no matter who coaches them. I think kiwis who should expect to have some world class players have been spoiled with the sheer all time All Black greatness of players between 2004 and 2015. You have to accept post 2015 no coach can make the All Blacks as consistently invulnerable as they were prior to 2015 and IMO the team might be another step down in 2019 with players retiring and aging now.


Hansen had by far the most talented squad at the 2019 world cup, same with 2015.

Hansen had the most desirable circumstances of any All Black coach to date.

Henry did a much better job than Hansen for a couple of key reasons:

1) ALL of the All Blacks opposition was stronger between 2004-2011. Wallabies, Springboks, France all significantly stronger teams during this time. The only exception was England and Ireland in the last 4 years of Hansen's tenure. But Hansen only had to face Eddie Jones' England twice. He faced Schmidt's Ireland five times losing twice. He was the first All Black's coach to lose to Ireland.

2) Hansen had better players at his disposal. The All Blacks depth only increased and became much stronger after the 2011 world cup because of the quality of players coming through sides such as the victorious 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 U-20 world cup winning teams. Then consider the key personal from each NZ Super Rugby winning team/campaign between 2012-2019 that Hansen had available to him:

The most-successful Hurricanes dynasty ever between 2015-2019:

Notable players: Barrett, J.Savea, A.Savea, Coles, Perenara, Nonu, C.Smith, J.Barrett, B.Franks, NMS, Shields, Vito, Goosen, Fatialofa, Laumape, Riccitelli, Aumua, Halahalo, Fifita, B.Lam, Gibbons, V.Aso, B.Thompson, M.Proctor etc..

The most-successful Chiefs dynasty ever between 2012-2019:

Notable players: Ngatai, Cruden, SBW, Rettalick, Kerr-Barlow, Messam, Afeaki, Bird, Cane, Lowe, Pulu, Harris, Weber, ALB, Mackenzie, K.Hames, Sanders, Boshier, Jacobson, Alaimalo, Laulala, A.Moli, Stevenson, S.Tamanivalu, etc..

The most-successful Highlanders dynasty ever between 2014-2019:

Notable players: A.Smith, B.Smith, Fekitoa, Sopoaga, Banks, Osbourne, Buckman, Coltman, Naholo, Squire, Frizell, L.Whitelock, Franklin, Hemepo, Walden, Dixon, D.Hunt, Faddes, S.Christie, DLB, G.Evans, Ioane, Lentjes, etc..

The equally most-successful Crusaders dynasty between 2012-2019:

Notable players: S.Whitelock, A.Whitelock, Crockett, Taylor, Moody, Franks, Read, Carter, Todd, McCaw, G.Whitelock, Laulala, S.Barrett, Douglas, Crotty, Romano, Taufua, Dagg, T.Taylor, Slade, Havili, Goodhue, Bridge, Reece, Ennor, Hall, Drummond, Jordan, Mataele, etc..

When Hansen was coach 7/8 of those years a NZ team won the Super Rugby title. During Henry's All Black tenure only 3/8 of those years did a NZ team win the Super Rugby title. The Crusaders were the ONLY consistently strong NZ Super Rugby team, throughout the course of Henry's eight-year tenure.

The depth in NZ rugby during Henry's All Blacks reign simply wasn't as good compared to the period Hansen was coach. The player quality+depth in NZ was worse during Henry's tenure (remember the days of players like Brendan Leonard, Aled Malmanche, Sione Lauaki, Stephen Donald, Issac Ross etc?).. Hansen had it much better player-wise, for example the international standard first-five options Hansen had available during the course of his 8-year tenure: Carter, Slade, Cruden, Mo'unga, Barrett, Sopoaga, Banks, Ioane, Black, Anscombe, etc.. (all in NZ available for All Black selection) Henry had to call up Beaver in 2011, we were so desperate! And the midfield options even more staggering depth for Hansen: Nonu, Smith, Ranger, Aki, Piutau, ALB, R.Ioane, Crotty, Fekitoa, Moala, Tamanivalu, Goodhue, Ngatai, Procter, Aso, Thompson, SBW, Ennor, Nankivell, etc.. (among the many quality world-class options Hansen had available to him over the course of his 8-year tenure), The outside back options that were available to Hansen: Smith, Savea, NMS, Piutau, Naholo, Mackenzie, Havili, Barrett, Reece, Jordan, Bridge, Ioane, J.Barrett, Lam, Goosen, etc.. Hansen had it much better in terms of the quality AND depth in the cattle available to him during his time compared to Henry. Significantly better in fact. Hansen had the golden-generation at his disposal, all the stars lined-up for him: NZ-U20's, Super Rugby, the quality of talent and depth coming through the systems was absolutely unprecedented in the history of NZ Rugby.

Take these things into consideration and it's more complicated. Hansen's winning percentage is unquestionable, 86% to Henry's 85%, but there is much more to being the best coach than that.

When judging the performance of a coach there are many factors we have to take into account, including the state of the team when they took over, the state of other international sides and the quality of players available.

Hansen sits well behind his predecessor Graham Henry and the late Fred Allen in that regard.

Much like it is tough to rank players from the professional-era and amateur-era side-by-side, it is a similar story for coaches.

The resources available to Hansen are far superior to what Allen had during his tenure.

Allen, for the record, coached the All Blacks from 1966-68 including 14 tests. Under his guidance, the All Blacks never lost a test.

During Allen's time, shorter terms of services were common for All Blacks coaches - in fact it took until Brian Lochore in 1985-87 to knock Allen off his perch as the second longest-tenured All Blacks coach in their history (by number of tests).

We have to take into account that Hansen was handed a team in an exceptionally strong position. Hanson inherited a ready made group of world class players and exceptional leaders.

They were coming off winning the 2011 Rugby World Cup and had most of their key players hanging around. He also had the advantage of continuity having served as assistant for the four years prior.

It was much different when Henry took over in 2004 with a high turnover of top-line players and a significantly different approach to team structures and selection from previous coach John Mitchell.

He had to re-build the team, from the players through to its culture.

Henry righted the course and got things on track for Hansen.

People seem to forget that Graham Henry was a very technical and analytical coach. He was a tactical genius and the All Blacks were very rarely (if ever) out-coached in the sense that Hansen was. Henry was very tactically astute whereas Hansen wasn't a very technical coach at all, he was quite the opposite, his strength was his emotional intelligence, he used this to connect and form strong relationships with his players and try to get the best out of them. Much like Cheika. The point is and the reason Hansen was able to be so successful with the All Blacks was the fact that at this level, when you have the best players in the world at your disposal you don't need to be an overly tactical coach. It's why likewise a coach like even Chieka would have been incredibly successful with the All Blacks, he was a similar type of coach to Hansen, emotionally strong, knows how to work with and maneuver the emotions of individuals and get inside the heads of players, to motivate, and manipulate his players for the ultimate team cause.

Coaches like Jones, Schmidt, Cotter all have to be more intelligent, shrewd and tactically proficient than Hansen because their teams simply aren't as good as the All Blacks. They are able to maximise the inferior-talent available to them. Henry was able to do this with Wales. Hansen attempted this with Wales and failed catastrophically. As we witnessed with the Wallabies under Cheika, this emotion/player based coaching will only work to an extent, it relies on simplicity and eventually you will be exposed and out-witted when pitted against much smarter, more tactically astute coaches, and that's what happened with both Hansen and Cheika. (See their last two years against Jones and Schmidt, and the 2019 Quarter and Semi-Final as the culmination of events that outlined their respective tenures).

In conclusion, Graham Henry has been the greatest All Black coach, followed by Fred Allen, Brian Lochore, Jack Gleeson and Steve Hansen somewhere behind.


Last edited by deverix on Sat Aug 01, 2020 1:55 am, edited 5 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 1:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16113
Congratulations on your PhD.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 1:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5018
Nice bit of analysis.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 1:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28222
Location: Queensland
Steve Hansen's Achilles heel as a coach will always be selection. He just wasn't a good selector. Sometimes having too many options is a negative because a coach can tend to needlessly chop and change rather than adopt a settled selection policy. That's exactly what Steve Hansen did. He spent the entirety of the last four year RWC cycle experimenting and rotating players. And we ended up going into the RWC semi final against England without a clue as to what our 1st XV was, let alone our best XXIII.

As an aside, I think the NH player drain impacted this shitty selection policy somewhat. I think Hansen felt compelled to keep as many players as possible in the All Black environment because he didn't want them to become disgruntled if they weren't selected and sign hefty easy rugby contracts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 2:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:30 am
Posts: 133
Ali's Choice wrote:
Steve Hansen's Achilles heel as a coach will always be selection. He just wasn't a good selector. Sometimes having too many options is a negative because a coach can tend to needlessly chop and change rather than adopt a settled selection policy. That's exactly what Steve Hansen did. He spent the entirety of the last four year RWC cycle experimenting and rotating players. And we ended up going into the RWC semi final against England without a clue as to what our 1st XV was, let alone our best XXIII.

As an aside, I think the NH player drain impacted this shitty selection policy somewhat. I think Hansen felt compelled to keep as many players as possible in the All Black environment because he didn't want them to become disgruntled if they weren't selected and sign hefty easy rugby contracts.


Hansen's strategy and tactics during his tenure were even more brain-dead.

Too often the All Blacks under Hansen got away with winning most of their games simply because they are faster and fitter than everyone else, and when we came across teams that play physically, Hansen didn't have the tactical nous required to adapt accordingly.

Hansen played right into Eddie's hands in the Semi-Final and showed zero ability to adapt whatsoever.

I've never seen the All Blacks play such a brainless, tactically absent brand of rugby than we did under Hansen. Too often we looked like a disorganized rabble like an under 9's club team.

Going into the future I hope to see the All Blacks play tactically smart rugby and ability to adapt.


Last edited by deverix on Sat Aug 01, 2020 2:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 2:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28222
Location: Queensland
deverix wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
Steve Hansen's Achilles heel as a coach will always be selection. He just wasn't a good selector. Sometimes having too many options is a negative because a coach can tend to needlessly chop and change rather than adopt a settled selection policy. That's exactly what Steve Hansen did. He spent the entirety of the last four year RWC cycle experimenting and rotating players. And we ended up going into the RWC semi final against England without a clue as to what our 1st XV was, let alone our best XXIII.

As an aside, I think the NH player drain impacted this shitty selection policy somewhat. I think Hansen felt compelled to keep as many players as possible in the All Black environment because he didn't want them to become disgruntled if they weren't selected and sign hefty easy rugby contracts.


Hansen's strategy and tactics during his tenure were even more braindead.

Too often the All Blacks under Hansen got away with winning most of their games simply because they are faster and fitter than everyone else, and when we came across teams that play physically, Hansen didn't have the tactical nous required to adapt accordingly.

Hanson played right into Eddie's hands in the Semi-Final and showed zero ability to adapt whatsoever.

I've never seen the All Blacks play such a brainless, tactically absent brand of rugby than we did under Hansen. Too often we looked like a disorganized rabble like an under 9's club team.

Going into the future I hope to see the All Blacks play tactically smart rugby and ability to adapt.


Unfortunately we can only expect 8 more years of the same under Ian Foster. Foster is a likeable enough guy, but hes never been a great coaching tactician. If he had innovative new ideas we'd have seen them over the past 8 years. I hope I am wrong about Foster, I'd love nothing more than to be wrong and for him to emerge as a great All Black coach. But I'm not overly optimistic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 3:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:30 am
Posts: 133
Ali's Choice wrote:
deverix wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
Steve Hansen's Achilles heel as a coach will always be selection. He just wasn't a good selector. Sometimes having too many options is a negative because a coach can tend to needlessly chop and change rather than adopt a settled selection policy. That's exactly what Steve Hansen did. He spent the entirety of the last four year RWC cycle experimenting and rotating players. And we ended up going into the RWC semi final against England without a clue as to what our 1st XV was, let alone our best XXIII.

As an aside, I think the NH player drain impacted this shitty selection policy somewhat. I think Hansen felt compelled to keep as many players as possible in the All Black environment because he didn't want them to become disgruntled if they weren't selected and sign hefty easy rugby contracts.


Hansen's strategy and tactics during his tenure were even more braindead.

Too often the All Blacks under Hansen got away with winning most of their games simply because they are faster and fitter than everyone else, and when we came across teams that play physically, Hansen didn't have the tactical nous required to adapt accordingly.

Hanson played right into Eddie's hands in the Semi-Final and showed zero ability to adapt whatsoever.

I've never seen the All Blacks play such a brainless, tactically absent brand of rugby than we did under Hansen. Too often we looked like a disorganized rabble like an under 9's club team.

Going into the future I hope to see the All Blacks play tactically smart rugby and ability to adapt.


Unfortunately we can only expect 8 more years of the same under Ian Foster. Foster is a likeable enough guy, but hes never been a great coaching tactician. If he had innovative new ideas we'd have seen them over the past 8 years. I hope I am wrong about Foster, I'd love nothing more than to be wrong and for him to emerge as a great All Black coach. But I'm not overly optimistic.


I'm not a huge Foster fan by any means, but he's certainly not a tactical slouch ala Hansen.

I'm hoping he'll at least be an improvement over Hansen's Cheika-esque style of rugby where there's barely sign of a discernible game-plan and little strategic depth/variation to be seen during matches.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 830
Location: Yorkshire
The All Blacks seemed to get progressively worse after Wayne Smith left in 2017...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 12:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2019 10:32 am
Posts: 526
deverix wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
booji boy wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
deverix wrote:
Also, what's with the myth being plastered around here that Hansen had a 'hugely successful' tenure as All Blacks assistant coach under Henry?

Hansen was largely an ineffective forwards coach for the All Blacks, from day-one had question marks over his worthiness of coaching at international level. He came under intense scrutiny for our abysmal line-out and set-piece against South Africa.

Henry and Smith did all the heavy-lifting. The success of that 2004-2011 period was down to them.

Hansen was never even remotely close to the class of Henry or Smith.


Now this is a post that gives me a good reason to point out silverware is not always the strongest indicator of possible test success. Sometimes it's about being a good fit. I think Robbie Deans was a great coach. His record at the Crusaders was second to none. I think however he was a bad fit for Australia, not that he was incapable at test level. (To be honest this past generation of Australian players no one has got the best out of them).

But it's sometimes about timings, being a good fit and who you are working with. Hansen was a great coach of excellent players, but a poor coach of lesser ones as he showed with Wales. Henry was a better overall coach but never got the All Blacks to perform as well in tournaments as Hansen did. Smith was a rugby super brain but didn't quite work as All Blacks coach. Mitchell is working wonders with England but kiwis hate his tenure in the early 2000's. I have wondered about Gatland, so far his entire career has been him at teams with limited resources and getting more out of them than anyone else could. Helped of course by a great working relationship with Shaun Edwards. Can he be as creative and make as good choices when given a near flawless team that doesn't need his creative brain to fill in or work around the weaknesses.


Are you basing this on 2007 and 2011? In both tournaments we were hamstrung by the loss of the GOAT DC. In the quarter final in 2007 we had built a comfortable lead then lost DC to injury and his very good replacement Nick Evans also went down after about 5 minutes. We still battled away and only lost by 2 points. But yes a very disappointing result.

In 2011 I'm sure our path to victory would have been much smoother if we'd had a fit DC available through to the final as Hansen did in 2011. Look at the pivotal role DC played in righting the ship when we got the wobbles in both the semifinal vs the Boks and the final against the Wallabies. In 2011 we started the semifinal and final with our 3rd choice flyhalf (Cruden) and were down to our 4th choice, Stephen Donald, by halftime. Also the pressure seemed to get to Piri Weepu in that final and he missed all his shots at goal that would have created some much needed breathing room on the scoreboard. A fit DC would most likely have nailed those goal kicks and controlled the match better than the inexperienced Cruden.

Yes 2015 was a magnificent victory for Hansen's team but he was very lucky with injuries and we still only squeaked past the Boks by 2 points.


No doubt you would have done better with DC, but you can hardly complain about Cruden as back-up. It also shows what delights Henry and Hansen had.

Quote:
2019 on the other hand was a dismal failure. A resounding win over Ireland followed by a comprehensive thumping by England in a match in which we barely fired a shot. This performance can't be held up as a better performance in a tournament.

If you are talking Tri Nations/Rugby Championship then I suggest that Henry's team faced much tougher Springbok and Wallaby sides than Hansen's sides did. The Jake White coached Springboks were a formidable team and the Eddie Jones/Robbie Deans coached teams were stronger than the Chieka coached rabble of the past 5 years.


You can't complain that Henry struggled because he had no Carter and then complain the Carter and McCaw less (and Nonu, Conrad Smith and Kaino less) All Blacks where not as good in 2019 and put the blame on the coach. It's not as if they lost to a scrub England team either, it's one that has a number exceptional players in a lot of key positions now (Curry, Underhill, Itoje, kyle sinckler, Vunipola 1 and 2, Daly, May, Tuilagi tc). Remember this si the generation who consistently out performed New Zealand in U20 world cups for a while.

A coach can only do so much. Hansen is a superb coach. I don't think losing to super motivated England stock full of class talent is any indication he got it wrong. Sometimes you have the players who can't do it as consistently no matter who coaches them. I think kiwis who should expect to have some world class players have been spoiled with the sheer all time All Black greatness of players between 2004 and 2015. You have to accept post 2015 no coach can make the All Blacks as consistently invulnerable as they were prior to 2015 and IMO the team might be another step down in 2019 with players retiring and aging now.


Hansen had by far the most talented squad at the 2019 world cup, same with 2015.

Hansen had the most desirable circumstances of any All Black coach to date.

Henry did a much better job than Hansen for a couple of key reasons:

1) ALL of the All Blacks opposition was stronger between 2004-2011. Wallabies, Springboks, France all significantly stronger teams during this time. The only exception was England and Ireland in the last 4 years of Hansen's tenure. But Hansen only had to face Eddie Jones' England twice. He faced Schmidt's Ireland five times losing twice. He was the first All Black's coach to lose to Ireland.

2) Hansen had better players at his disposal. The All Blacks depth only increased and became much stronger after the 2011 world cup because of the quality of players coming through sides such as the victorious 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 U-20 world cup winning teams. Then consider the key personal from each NZ Super Rugby winning team/campaign between 2012-2019 that Hansen had available to him:

The most-successful Hurricanes dynasty ever between 2015-2019:

Notable players: Barrett, J.Savea, A.Savea, Coles, Perenara, Nonu, C.Smith, J.Barrett, B.Franks, NMS, Shields, Vito, Goosen, Fatialofa, Laumape, Riccitelli, Aumua, Halahalo, Fifita, B.Lam, Gibbons, V.Aso, B.Thompson, M.Proctor etc..

The most-successful Chiefs dynasty ever between 2012-2019:

Notable players: Ngatai, Cruden, SBW, Rettalick, Kerr-Barlow, Messam, Afeaki, Bird, Cane, Lowe, Pulu, Harris, Weber, ALB, Mackenzie, K.Hames, Sanders, Boshier, Jacobson, Alaimalo, Laulala, A.Moli, Stevenson, S.Tamanivalu, etc..

The most-successful Highlanders dynasty ever between 2014-2019:

Notable players: A.Smith, B.Smith, Fekitoa, Sopoaga, Banks, Osbourne, Buckman, Coltman, Naholo, Squire, Frizell, L.Whitelock, Franklin, Hemepo, Walden, Dixon, D.Hunt, Faddes, S.Christie, DLB, G.Evans, Ioane, Lentjes, etc..

The equally most-successful Crusaders dynasty between 2012-2019:

Notable players: S.Whitelock, A.Whitelock, Crockett, Taylor, Moody, Franks, Read, Carter, Todd, McCaw, G.Whitelock, Laulala, S.Barrett, Douglas, Crotty, Romano, Taufua, Dagg, T.Taylor, Slade, Havili, Goodhue, Bridge, Reece, Ennor, Hall, Drummond, Jordan, Mataele, etc..

When Hansen was coach 7/8 of those years a NZ team won the Super Rugby title. During Henry's All Black tenure only 3/8 of those years did a NZ team win the Super Rugby title. The Crusaders were the ONLY consistently strong NZ Super Rugby team, throughout the course of Henry's eight-year tenure.

The depth in NZ rugby during Henry's All Blacks reign simply wasn't as good compared to the period Hansen was coach. The player quality+depth in NZ was worse during Henry's tenure (remember the days of players like Brendan Leonard, Aled Malmanche, Sione Lauaki, Stephen Donald, Issac Ross etc?).. Hansen had it much better player-wise, for example the international standard first-five options Hansen had available during the course of his 8-year tenure: Carter, Slade, Cruden, Mo'unga, Barrett, Sopoaga, Banks, Ioane, Black, Anscombe, etc.. (all in NZ available for All Black selection) Henry had to call up Beaver in 2011, we were so desperate! And the midfield options even more staggering depth for Hansen: Nonu, Smith, Ranger, Aki, Piutau, ALB, R.Ioane, Crotty, Fekitoa, Moala, Tamanivalu, Goodhue, Ngatai, Procter, Aso, Thompson, SBW, Ennor, Nankivell, etc.. (among the many quality world-class options Hansen had available to him over the course of his 8-year tenure), The outside back options that were available to Hansen: Smith, Savea, NMS, Piutau, Naholo, Mackenzie, Havili, Barrett, Reece, Jordan, Bridge, Ioane, J.Barrett, Lam, Goosen, etc.. Hansen had it much better in terms of the quality AND depth in the cattle available to him during his time compared to Henry. Significantly better in fact. Hansen had the golden-generation at his disposal, all the stars lined-up for him: NZ-U20's, Super Rugby, the quality of talent and depth coming through the systems was absolutely unprecedented in the history of NZ Rugby.

Take these things into consideration and it's more complicated. Hansen's winning percentage is unquestionable, 86% to Henry's 85%, but there is much more to being the best coach than that.

When judging the performance of a coach there are many factors we have to take into account, including the state of the team when they took over, the state of other international sides and the quality of players available.

Hansen sits well behind his predecessor Graham Henry and the late Fred Allen in that regard.

Much like it is tough to rank players from the professional-era and amateur-era side-by-side, it is a similar story for coaches.

The resources available to Hansen are far superior to what Allen had during his tenure.

Allen, for the record, coached the All Blacks from 1966-68 including 14 tests. Under his guidance, the All Blacks never lost a test.

During Allen's time, shorter terms of services were common for All Blacks coaches - in fact it took until Brian Lochore in 1985-87 to knock Allen off his perch as the second longest-tenured All Blacks coach in their history (by number of tests).

We have to take into account that Hansen was handed a team in an exceptionally strong position. Hanson inherited a ready made group of world class players and exceptional leaders.

They were coming off winning the 2011 Rugby World Cup and had most of their key players hanging around. He also had the advantage of continuity having served as assistant for the four years prior.

It was much different when Henry took over in 2004 with a high turnover of top-line players and a significantly different approach to team structures and selection from previous coach John Mitchell.

He had to re-build the team, from the players through to its culture.

Henry righted the course and got things on track for Hansen.

People seem to forget that Graham Henry was a very technical and analytical coach. He was a tactical genius and the All Blacks were very rarely (if ever) out-coached in the sense that Hansen was. Henry was very tactically astute whereas Hansen wasn't a very technical coach at all, he was quite the opposite, his strength was his emotional intelligence, he used this to connect and form strong relationships with his players and try to get the best out of them. Much like Cheika. The point is and the reason Hansen was able to be so successful with the All Blacks was the fact that at this level, when you have the best players in the world at your disposal you don't need to be an overly tactical coach. It's why likewise a coach like even Chieka would have been incredibly successful with the All Blacks, he was a similar type of coach to Hansen, emotionally strong, knows how to work with and maneuver the emotions of individuals and get inside the heads of players, to motivate, and manipulate his players for the ultimate team cause.

Coaches like Jones, Schmidt, Cotter all have to be more intelligent, shrewd and tactically proficient than Hansen because their teams simply aren't as good as the All Blacks. They are able to maximise the inferior-talent available to them. Henry was able to do this with Wales. Hansen attempted this with Wales and failed catastrophically. As we witnessed with the Wallabies under Cheika, this emotion/player based coaching will only work to an extent, it relies on simplicity and eventually you will be exposed and out-witted when pitted against much smarter, more tactically astute coaches, and that's what happened with both Hansen and Cheika. (See their last two years against Jones and Schmidt, and the 2019 Quarter and Semi-Final as the culmination of events that outlined their respective tenures).

In conclusion, Graham Henry has been the greatest All Black coach, followed by Fred Allen, Brian Lochore, Jack Gleeson and Steve Hansen somewhere behind.

Holy f**king shit!! How long did that take to write. Hand that man his honours.. nice thesis :lol: :thumbup:

Gotta give credit where credits due. That was well put together and will take alot of passion from someone to discredit your opinion!

Atleast we know this man aint trolling


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 1:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4245
eldanielfire wrote:
Hansen is a superb coach.


Albeit one who holds spiteful grudges, based not on fact but emotion. I wonder how that personal trait affected his selections.


Last edited by Ellafan on Sat Aug 01, 2020 1:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 1:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4245
Ali's Choice wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
He 100% got it wrong. England still might have won if he'd got it right, but that doesn't change the fact he got it wrong.


Yup, not just specifically relating to that match but more broadly across that entire RWC cycle. Constant chopping and changing for no reason - even when players were performing. Constantly experimenting with new combinations. Change for changes sake. We went into the 2019 RWC with no settled and established combinations across our entire squad except for our locks. We had a new look front row, no established backrow, a new halves pairing, an ever-changing midfield, two new wingers and a new-look 15 who still wanted to lead the team from first receiver. That's inexcusable for a team that won as much as we did. Winning allows a coach the luxury to retain players and combinations.


You forgot to mention that Hansen's job would gave been easier if it wasn't for NZR trying to help out RA, to whom they owe nothing. :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 3:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:58 am
Posts: 3443
Laurie Mains was a better coach than Hansen. Henry was lucky he had Wayne Smith and some of the greatest players in his squads. He has 2 teams of players that were good enough to win the World Cup in 07 and he choked it. The man never should have been given the keys again. Hell we might have won the 11 World Cup by 30 points had Dingo not been robbed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28681
Ali's Choice wrote:
Steve Hansen's Achilles heel as a coach will always be selection. He just wasn't a good selector. Sometimes having too many options is a negative because a coach can tend to needlessly chop and change rather than adopt a settled selection policy. That's exactly what Steve Hansen did. He spent the entirety of the last four year RWC cycle experimenting and rotating players. And we ended up going into the RWC semi final against England without a clue as to what our 1st XV was, let alone our best XXIII.

As an aside, I think the NH player drain impacted this shitty selection policy somewhat. I think Hansen felt compelled to keep as many players as possible in the All Black environment because he didn't want them to become disgruntled if they weren't selected and sign hefty easy rugby contracts.


Was the All Black team of 2019 really less settled than the Springboks and and England sides of 2019? Eddie Jones side from 2016 and 2017 was quite different to the 2019 one. Rassie hadn't even taken charge in 2017. Only Ireland could be said to have had a completely settled side and many think that worked against them in an era where knowledge of coaches tactics, choices and selections is an information arms race.

Did Hansen really experiment that much in the 2016-2017 period? I thought much of the team was fairly settled for a post RWC side with many retirements and whom they had available. He certainly felt he had to get more experimental after 2017 because Beauden Barrett was badly found out at 10 in 2017 after facing the rush defence of Daddy Farrell a few times. There are also Eddie Jones and Gatland's introduction of the double decision maker with the Ford-Farrell and Sexton-Farrell combinations proving to be successful new ways to be dangerous (and yes I know it's the classic aussie system, tactics are often circular) so he went with doing it via his 10-15 creative focus. I think it's possible that for the first time in over a decade the ABs were found to be genuinely behind the trend for the innovations occurring in the game and it was in part due to reactions to long term All Black success.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 02, 2020 12:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28222
Location: Queensland
eldanielfire wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
Steve Hansen's Achilles heel as a coach will always be selection. He just wasn't a good selector. Sometimes having too many options is a negative because a coach can tend to needlessly chop and change rather than adopt a settled selection policy. That's exactly what Steve Hansen did. He spent the entirety of the last four year RWC cycle experimenting and rotating players. And we ended up going into the RWC semi final against England without a clue as to what our 1st XV was, let alone our best XXIII.

As an aside, I think the NH player drain impacted this shitty selection policy somewhat. I think Hansen felt compelled to keep as many players as possible in the All Black environment because he didn't want them to become disgruntled if they weren't selected and sign hefty easy rugby contracts.


Was the All Black team of 2019 really less settled than the Springboks and and England sides of 2019? Eddie Jones side from 2016 and 2017 was quite different to the 2019 one. Rassie hadn't even taken charge in 2017. Only Ireland could be said to have had a completely settled side and many think that worked against them in an era where knowledge of coaches tactics, choices and selections is an information arms race.

Did Hansen really experiment that much in the 2016-2017 period? I thought much of the team was fairly settled for a post RWC side with many retirements and whom they had available. He certainly felt he had to get more experimental after 2017 because Beauden Barrett was badly found out at 10 in 2017 after facing the rush defence of Daddy Farrell a few times. There are also Eddie Jones and Gatland's introduction of the double decision maker with the Ford-Farrell and Sexton-Farrell combinations proving to be successful new ways to be dangerous (and yes I know it's the classic aussie system, tactics are often circular) so he went with doing it via his 10-15 creative focus. I think it's possible that for the first time in over a decade the ABs were found to be genuinely behind the trend for the innovations occurring in the game and it was in part due to reactions to long term All Black success.


The team wasn't settled. The only area of our XV that was settled going into the RWC was our locks. We had a new front row, our backrow was in disarray, and new halves combinations, lacked a settled midfield, new wingers and a new fb. I'm not sure how Hansen's selections could have been worse.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:30 am
Posts: 133
Kahu wrote:
Hell we might have won the 11 World Cup by 30 points had Dingo not been robbed.


Henry was always better qualified for the job. Ted was superior coach and selector than Dingo.

Deans was responsible for many selection howlers (Cameron Mcintyre over Andrew Mehrtens in Super Rugby final 2004, Ben Blair over Christian Cullen in 2002, and finally.. MacDonald over Umaga in that fateful 2003 Semi-Final. Dean's controversial selections during his Wallabies tenure are well-documented.

Deans:

Only 1 title from 5 seasons (Canterbury)

5 titles from 9 seasons (Crusaders) 73% win-ratio

57% win-ratio with Wallabies

Henry:

4 titles from 4 seasons (Auckland)

3 titles from 3 seasons (Blues) 83% win-ratio

60% win-ratio with Wales

As for Hansen (by the wise words of True Blue)..

He inherited a team Henry built from the ground up and basically ran it into the ground. FACT.

Deans > Hansen.


Last edited by deverix on Sun Aug 02, 2020 10:46 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 02, 2020 7:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:30 am
Posts: 133
Ellafan wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Hansen is a superb coach.


Albeit one who holds spiteful grudges, based not on fact but emotion. I wonder how that personal trait affected his selections.


Hansen's air of arrogance and self-righteous, sanctimonious attitude was quite off-putting.

His complete disregard and lack of respect for New Zealand's Super Rugby teams/coaches that contributed astronomically towards the All Blacks success during his tenure was particularly displeasing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 02, 2020 10:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28222
Location: Queensland
deverix wrote:
Hansen's air of arrogance and self-righteous, sanctimonious attitude was quite off-putting.

His complete disregard and lack of respect for New Zealand's Super Rugby teams/coaches that contributed astronomically towards the All Blacks success during his tenure was particularly displeasing.


Yes, he was awful to the SR coaches. Often it seemed as if he went out of his way to make their lives difficult. He treated them, and SR more generally, with absolute disdain.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 02, 2020 10:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:30 am
Posts: 133
Ali's Choice wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
He 100% got it wrong. England still might have won if he'd got it right, but that doesn't change the fact he got it wrong.


Yup, not just specifically relating to that match but more broadly across that entire RWC cycle. Constant chopping and changing for no reason - even when players were performing. Constantly experimenting with new combinations. Change for changes sake. We went into the 2019 RWC with no settled and established combinations across our entire squad except for our locks. We had a new look front row, no established backrow, a new halves pairing, an ever-changing midfield, two new wingers and a new-look 15 who still wanted to lead the team from first receiver. That's inexcusable for a team that won as much as we did. Winning allows a coach the luxury to retain players and combinations.


It's pure madness when you think about it.

Mo'unga had only started 5 tests before the England match, inside 4 different 12's (ALB, SBW, Crotty, Laumape) we never played a consecutive match with the same midfield pairing until England game.

A front-row, backrow and wingers that had played merely 3 games together before the Semi-Final.


Last edited by deverix on Sun Aug 02, 2020 10:25 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 156 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AlanBengio, CarrotGawks, Google Adsense [Bot], pigaaaa, terryfinch, towny and 53 guests


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