Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black role..

All things Rugby
User avatar
Ali's Choice
Posts: 28860
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Queensland

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by Ali's Choice »

deverix wrote: Ben Blair over Christian Cullen in 2002, and finally.. MacDonald over Umaga in that fateful 2003 Semi-Final.
Are you stupid? Assistant coach Deans never attended a single AB selection meeting. He was forbidden from attending selection meetings as part of his NZRU contract because of the perceived conflict of interest given he was the Crusaders coach. This information is well documented and has never been disputed.
User avatar
jdogscoop
Posts: 13635
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by jdogscoop »

Ali's Choice wrote:
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.
Moreover, who's fault might it be if the "ABs were found to be genuinely behind the trend for the innovations occurring in the game"?

Perhaps the coach?
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6006
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by Wilderbeast »

Ali's Choice wrote:
deverix wrote: Ben Blair over Christian Cullen in 2002, and finally.. MacDonald over Umaga in that fateful 2003 Semi-Final.
Are you stupid? Assistant coach Deans never attended a single AB selection meeting. He was forbidden from attending selection meetings as part of his NZRU contract because of the perceived conflict of interest given he was the Crusaders coach. This information is well documented and has never been disputed.
If I disputed it, what would you show me to prove me wrong? Genuinely curious. I always thought it was Mitchell’s decision but knew nothing about Deans not being involved.
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 29876
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by eldanielfire »

jdogscoop wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
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.
Moreover, who's fault might it be if the "ABs were found to be genuinely behind the trend for the innovations occurring in the game"?

Perhaps the coach?
Certainly in part. But with all dynasties they don't abandon what works at the drop of a hat every time someone tries out something new. New Zealand can't be on the crest of the wave permanently nor can it the singular creative force in the sport. New trends arise from different styles of play and the sheer diversity of them can't be forced out of one source. After all some of the newish trends in Rugby are adaptations of trends alien to those adopting it but made out of a lack of players or skill sets required. The sheer long term success of the All Blacks mean they rarely if ever need to get creative over a lack of something in the side. Hansen's success was in getting the ABs to play a high skill rugby game where forwards and backs are almost interchangeable in attack. I don't think another coach could have produced a team that so successfully did this.

The response to that increasing was perfecting the rush defence, you can't outskill the ABs so pressurise them into making mistakes, having no time to read the game or bad decisions onfield. It worked largely because New Zealand were never given a reason why their own methods weren't working. If anything it came at a time New Zealand's win records are becoming their all time best. They couldn't possibly have seen the need to change ahead of time.
tubbyj
Posts: 1148
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by tubbyj »

They did see the need for change though. In 2019 they completely changed tack.

After previous games in Tokyo Hansen, Foster and Fox must have thought this WC was going to be different with hotter temps and faster dryer grounds that were going to suit a helter skelter style of rugby not previously successful in WC knockout rugby (previous All Black teams most notably 2003 had lost trying to play this style).

They then jettisoned older experienced players like Owen Franks, Sonny Bill Williams, Ryan Crotty and Ben Smith who they didn't think would suit these tactics for more mobile, younger but less experienced players.

The Tsunami didn't help admittedly but how anyone could have witnessed up close Richie McCaw in 2011 and Carter in 2015 and how valuable their experience and leadership were in the crunch moments of the knockout games of those tournaments then turned around and willingly jettisoned a great bulk of their experienced leaders for the 2019 knockout games is bewildering. Pure arrogance and hubris.
tubbyj
Posts: 1148
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by tubbyj »

They must have felt pretty smart after it worked against SA in the pool stages and then thrashing a sub par Ireland but the same failing of so many NZ coaches at WC's 1991-2007 the appreciation that WC knockout rugby is a different beast to other test rugby caught them in the semi against England.

At least they were spared the embarrassment Mitchell and Deans suffered in 2003 had it been SA who had eliminated them after previously losing to them earlier on in the season. Unfortunately for NZ rugby though this lack of complete embarrassment has allowed Foster and Fox to retain their jobs. Hopefully they have learnt a lesson though and they understand the majority of players they select and invest experience in over the next 2 season will have to form the bulk of the team that plays the 2023 WC.
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 29876
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by eldanielfire »

tubbyj wrote:They did see the need for change though. In 2019 they completely changed tack.

After previous games in Tokyo Hansen, Foster and Fox must have thought this WC was going to be different with hotter temps and faster dryer grounds that were going to suit a helter skelter style of rugby not previously successful in WC knockout rugby (previous All Black teams most notably 2003 had lost trying to play this style).

They then jettisoned older experienced players like Owen Franks, Sonny Bill Williams, Ryan Crotty and Ben Smith who they didn't think would suit these tactics for more mobile, younger but less experienced players.

The Tsunami didn't help admittedly but how anyone could have witnessed up close Richie McCaw in 2011 and Carter in 2015 and how valuable their experience and leadership were in the crunch moments of the knockout games of those tournaments then turned around and willingly jettisoned a great bulk of their experienced leaders for the 2019 knockout games is bewildering. Pure arrogance and hubris.
I agree with some of this. I for one could never quite understand why Ben Smith was shifted away from Full Back to the wing.

Hansen's attitude is like many other top coaches in World Rugby. They seem to be more intent on controlling they way their team plays by more and more micromanagement and less input from senior players. Captains are now the voice of the coach on the pitch rather than a field commander who'll make the decisions and calls to carry out or even deviate from the coaches plan if needed.
User avatar
Ellafan
Posts: 4697
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by Ellafan »

Hansen became a self important dictator, who thinks the All Blacks/NZ are bigger than world rugby and the game itself. Read this for example:
Ex-All Blacks coach Steve Hansen puts heat on World Rugby
Richard Knowler15:21, Jul 13 2020

Steve Hansen is certain World Rugby won’t have the courage to kick the All Blacks out of World Cup tournaments if NZ Rugby breaks rank and schedules its own tests.
....
“You (NZ Rugby) turn around and say ‘World Rugby won’t dictate who we have to play, other than maybe a tier-two nation’,’’ Hansen told Stuff.

[snip bit about how the world owes NZR more money]

When it was put to Hansen that an angry World Rugby could try to seek retribution by booting the All Blacks out of the global tournaments he didn’t believe it would have the fortitude to derail its own tournament.

“I will put it to you this way. Do you think World Rugby would like to have a World Cup without the All Blacks in it?’’ Hansen said.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all ... orld-rugby
Sickening arrogance, which seems to have affected his selection/coaching for the worse.
User avatar
jdogscoop
Posts: 13635
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by jdogscoop »

tubbyj wrote:They must have felt pretty smart after it worked against SA in the pool stages and then thrashing a sub par Ireland but the same failing of so many NZ coaches at WC's 1991-2007 the appreciation that WC knockout rugby is a different beast to other test rugby caught them in the semi against England.

At least they were spared the embarrassment Mitchell and Deans suffered in 2003 had it been SA who had eliminated them after previously losing to them earlier on in the season. Unfortunately for NZ rugby though this lack of complete embarrassment has allowed Foster and Fox to retain their jobs. Hopefully they have learnt a lesson though and they understand the majority of players they select and invest experience in over the next 2 season will have to form the bulk of the team that plays the 2023 WC.
So true, and so desperately sad for us as All Blacks fans.

We have the most talented players in the world, and yet at times we can be so fvcking thick.
User avatar
UncleFB
Posts: 13092
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by UncleFB »

Wilderbeast wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
deverix wrote: Ben Blair over Christian Cullen in 2002, and finally.. MacDonald over Umaga in that fateful 2003 Semi-Final.
Are you stupid? Assistant coach Deans never attended a single AB selection meeting. He was forbidden from attending selection meetings as part of his NZRU contract because of the perceived conflict of interest given he was the Crusaders coach. This information is well documented and has never been disputed.
If I disputed it, what would you show me to prove me wrong? Genuinely curious. I always thought it was Mitchell’s decision but knew nothing about Deans not being involved.
A backs coach with no input in selection ... :lol:

Also, if the NZRU couldn’t trust Deans to leave his biases at the door they should have never have given him the job.
User avatar
Ali's Choice
Posts: 28860
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Queensland

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by Ali's Choice »

UncleFB wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
deverix wrote: Ben Blair over Christian Cullen in 2002, and finally.. MacDonald over Umaga in that fateful 2003 Semi-Final.
Are you stupid? Assistant coach Deans never attended a single AB selection meeting. He was forbidden from attending selection meetings as part of his NZRU contract because of the perceived conflict of interest given he was the Crusaders coach. This information is well documented and has never been disputed.
If I disputed it, what would you show me to prove me wrong? Genuinely curious. I always thought it was Mitchell’s decision but knew nothing about Deans not being involved.
A backs coach with no input in selection ... :lol:
That's exactly what occurred, and for clear and obvious reasons. And anyone who thinks otherwise is being a conspiracy theorist.
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6006
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by Wilderbeast »

Waiting for that proof AC...
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6006
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by Wilderbeast »

Double.
User avatar
Ali's Choice
Posts: 28860
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Queensland

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by Ali's Choice »

Wilderbeast wrote:Waiting for that proof AC...
It is common knowledge that Robbie Deans was not a selector. This took me two seconds to find on google. You should be ashamed at your lack of Rugby knowledge.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/a ... tid=940070
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6006
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by Wilderbeast »

I don’t think it’s common knowledge at all. Ive never heard it mentioned.
deverix
Posts: 141
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:30 am

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by deverix »

tubbyj wrote:thrashing a sub-par Ireland
Exactly.. the fixation on their rivalry, avenging the Dublin and Chicago losses, consumed and distracted Hansen.

Ireland were absolutely woeful form in 2019, people seem to forget they got thrashed 57-14 points by England prior to the World Cup, then went on to lose to Japan in pool-play. They were largely a bundle of washed-up veterans well-past their prime, solid dependable players in most positions, but dwarfed in comparison to the All Black's sheer talent, flair and x-factor from 1-23.

On form the Irish were as poor-side as the Wallabies at the world cup, yet Hansen acted as if they'd simultaneously bagged the world cup and conquered the best team in the world in the process.

England put 57 points on Ireland just 2 months earlier, it seems everyone but Hansen could see that Ireland weren't going to be the real threat.

All the focus and effort went into avenging the Dublin loss, without recognizing England were going to be another level above that rabble of an Irish side, the poor quality of the All Black's Quarter Final opposition (who had already lost to Japan) just added to the illusion and simply fuelled Hansen's arrogance.
User avatar
Ali's Choice
Posts: 28860
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Queensland

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by Ali's Choice »

Wilderbeast wrote:I don’t think it’s common knowledge at all. Ive never heard it mentioned.
No worries, Mog.
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6006
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by Wilderbeast »

Don’t try that shit on me :lol:
deverix
Posts: 141
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:30 am

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by deverix »

Ali's Choice wrote:
deverix wrote: Ben Blair over Christian Cullen in 2002, and finally.. MacDonald over Umaga in that fateful 2003 Semi-Final.
Deans never attended a single AB selection meeting. He was forbidden from attending selection meetings as part of his NZRU contract because of the perceived conflict of interest given he was the Crusaders coach.
I've just dusted off Dean's biography 'Red, Black and Gold' from the book-shelf.

My apologies AC. you're half-correct here. Deans wasn't initially involved in AB selection meetings for when All Black squads were being decided. Cullen's omission was all John Mitchell.

Robbie however was heavily involved in match selection, particularly involving the backline. Since he was backs coach during that period. By all accounts Leon MacDonald's selection over Tana Umaga was Dean's decision.

Going back to my point, Henry was always the best man for the All Blacks job. Not Deans.

Deans was a fine SR coach, but Ted was always a better selector and coach than Deans.
Last edited by deverix on Mon Aug 03, 2020 4:14 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
JB1981
Posts: 7045
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2015 5:14 am
Location: NZ

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by JB1981 »

Wilderbeast wrote:I don’t think it’s common knowledge at all. Ive never heard it mentioned.
The same logic was applied when Hansen’s request to be able to coach the Crusaders and be an AB assistant at the same time was turned down.
The decision also reflected the board’s regard for Steve not only as an All Blacks assistant coach, but also as a team selector, an asset that would have been lost to the All Blacks in the dual coaching proposal.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.superx ... -role/amp/
User avatar
UncleFB
Posts: 13092
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by UncleFB »

Ali's Choice wrote:
UncleFB wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
deverix wrote: Ben Blair over Christian Cullen in 2002, and finally.. MacDonald over Umaga in that fateful 2003 Semi-Final.
Are you stupid? Assistant coach Deans never attended a single AB selection meeting. He was forbidden from attending selection meetings as part of his NZRU contract because of the perceived conflict of interest given he was the Crusaders coach. This information is well documented and has never been disputed.
If I disputed it, what would you show me to prove me wrong? Genuinely curious. I always thought it was Mitchell’s decision but knew nothing about Deans not being involved.
A backs coach with no input in selection ... :lol:
That's exactly what occurred, and for clear and obvious reasons. And anyone who thinks otherwise is being a conspiracy theorist.
So you think Mitchell and Deans didn't have a chat about preferred players, I know you bleed red and black but I've always assumed you don't allow it to make you stupid.
User avatar
Ali's Choice
Posts: 28860
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Queensland

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by Ali's Choice »

UncleFB wrote: So you think Mitchell and Deans didn't have a chat about preferred players, I know you bleed red and black but I've always assumed you don't allow it to make you stupid.
I have no doubt they chatted. But there is a big difference between a quiet chat and Robbie Deans being responsible for those decisions when he wasn't even a selector. That's like blaming Scott McLeod for the dropping of Sam Cane for last year's RWC semi final.
deverix
Posts: 141
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:30 am

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by deverix »

Ali's Choice wrote:
UncleFB wrote: So you think Mitchell and Deans didn't have a chat about preferred players, I know you bleed red and black but I've always assumed you don't allow it to make you stupid.
I have no doubt they chatted. But there is a big difference between a quiet chat and Robbie Deans being responsible for those decisions when he wasn't even a selector. That's like blaming Scott McLeod for the dropping of Sam Cane for last year's RWC semi final.
Can't blame Fozzie either. Hansen oversees the forwards - it was obvious Barrett at 6 was his call.
Last edited by deverix on Mon Aug 03, 2020 6:51 am, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
UncleFB
Posts: 13092
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by UncleFB »

Ali's Choice wrote:
UncleFB wrote: So you think Mitchell and Deans didn't have a chat about preferred players, I know you bleed red and black but I've always assumed you don't allow it to make you stupid.
I have no doubt they chatted. But there is a big difference between a quiet chat and Robbie Deans being responsible for those decisions when he wasn't even a selector. That's like blaming Scott McLeod for the dropping of Sam Cane for last year's RWC semi final.
I think the coaching relationship between Mitchell and Deans was a wee bit different, and a darn sight closer then Hansen and McLeod, they were more a partnership than head coach and assistant - which is what happens when you hire a head coach who is an imbecile and an assistant who is a good coach.
User avatar
naki
Posts: 14209
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by naki »

Hansen's gamble on youth (and mobility, which I won't bore anyone by going into again) was a fairly remarkable turnaround from someone who had previously built and helped build the most experienced international team in the world. I doubt he'd forgotten that experienced combinations win WCs, but rather he'd lost trust in those older heads to continue to do the job. As it was we went in with a back three that had never played together before that season (including essentially debutantes and a 10 still learning the fullback role), a centre partnership that had barely played together before the Cup after he'd invested seasons in Crotty and SBW, a first-five who would have been the most inexperienced 10 to ever win the WC, a back row that had never played together before, and a front row missing the anchor of his previous two cup wins and it's most experienced player on the bench.
Wilderbeast
Posts: 6006
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by Wilderbeast »

Naki, all this is true but which changes do you think would have made a positive impact? Certainly at the time the only questionable selection was Scott but the armchair critics best friend is a little hindsight.

Edit: I personally think very few positions would have made a difference. Smith at 15 may have been a bit better as BB was forced into clearing kicks for much of the match. It’s debatable if this was the right call (it’s certainly the textbook play) but Smith May have been able to do something else though I doubt it. Despite all the attention on mounga at 10, I can’t remember how he went at all.
User avatar
naki
Posts: 14209
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by naki »

Wilderbeast wrote:Naki, all this is true but which changes do you think would have made a positive impact? Certainly at the time the only questionable selection was Scott but the armchair critics best friend is a little hindsight.

Edit: I personally think very few positions would have made a difference. Smith at 15 may have been a bit better as BB was forced into clearing kicks for much of the match. It’s debatable if this was the right call (it’s certainly the textbook play) but Smith May have been able to do something else though I doubt it. Despite all the attention on mounga at 10, I can’t remember how he went at all.
It was the timing of the selection changes that mattered more than the personnel themselves. Even one previous season together would have helped, you simply can’t win a tight contest if you can’t innately trust the players around you to have done it together before.

Sure, the form of players like Reece, Bridge and Mo was too compelling to resist but they were always going to struggle behind a fractured, confused-looking pack.

Mo was swamped all game. Targeted brilliantly both with and without the ball. The kind of learning experience you want a green 10 to have a year or two before the WC, not during a farking semifinal
User avatar
jdogscoop
Posts: 13635
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by jdogscoop »

naki wrote:
Wilderbeast wrote:Naki, all this is true but which changes do you think would have made a positive impact? Certainly at the time the only questionable selection was Scott but the armchair critics best friend is a little hindsight.

Edit: I personally think very few positions would have made a difference. Smith at 15 may have been a bit better as BB was forced into clearing kicks for much of the match. It’s debatable if this was the right call (it’s certainly the textbook play) but Smith May have been able to do something else though I doubt it. Despite all the attention on mounga at 10, I can’t remember how he went at all.
It was the timing of the selection changes that mattered more than the personnel themselves. Even one previous season together would have helped, you simply can’t win a tight contest if you can’t innately trust the players around you to have done it together before.

Sure, the form of players like Reece, Bridge and Mo was too compelling to resist but they were always going to struggle behind a fractured, confused-looking pack.

Mo was swamped all game. Targeted brilliantly both with and without the ball. The kind of learning experience you want a green 10 to have a year or two before the WC, not during a farking semifinal
So true. Man we got owned that day.
User avatar
HouseOfPane
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:27 am
Location: The Glasshouse

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by HouseOfPane »

naki wrote:Hansen's gamble on youth (and mobility, which I won't bore anyone by going into again) was a fairly remarkable turnaround from someone who had previously built and helped build the most experienced international team in the world. I doubt he'd forgotten that experienced combinations win WCs, but rather he'd lost trust in those older heads to continue to do the job. As it was we went in with a back three that had never played together before that season (including essentially debutantes and a 10 still learning the fullback role), a centre partnership that had barely played together before the Cup after he'd invested seasons in Crotty and SBW, a first-five who would have been the most inexperienced 10 to ever win the WC, a back row that had never played together before, and a front row missing the anchor of his previous two cup wins and it's most experienced player on the bench.
This post best sums it up for me. Almost as if it was the plot of 'Inception', but instead of a very handsome Leo planting an idea in Steve's head, it was ole Eddie himself, "Hey Stevo ya twat, it's world cup year - do something stupid ae?"
User avatar
naki
Posts: 14209
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by naki »

The biggest absence was undoubtedly Wayne Smith. Can’t see him getting so easily outsmarted by Eddie Jones. As it was we looked tactically naive and muddled. Far more humiliating than being outmuscled was being outfoxed - by Journey farking Mitchell!
User avatar
jdogscoop
Posts: 13635
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by jdogscoop »

Indeed, and I found it rather delicious when Wayne Smith came out in the media and skewered our pitiful attacking strategy in his analysis of the game.

Presumably he isn't best mates with then-attack coach Ian Foster.
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8889
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by booji boy »

jdogscoop wrote:Indeed, and I found it rather delicious when Wayne Smith came out in the media and skewered our pitiful attacking strategy in his analysis of the game.

Presumably he isn't best mates with then-attack coach Ian Foster.
Yeah I heard that too. I thought he was pretty scathing considering how recently he had been involved with the team. He described the tactics which worked a treat against Ireland but Eddie Jones and England read them like a book and completely snuffed out our attack. What little attack we were able to muster that is given we were getting pulverized up front.
Bayern
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 5:38 pm

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by Bayern »

booji boy wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:Indeed, and I found it rather delicious when Wayne Smith came out in the media and skewered our pitiful attacking strategy in his analysis of the game.

Presumably he isn't best mates with then-attack coach Ian Foster.
Yeah I heard that too. I thought he was pretty scathing considering how recently he had been involved with the team. He described the tactics which worked a treat against Ireland but Eddie Jones and England read them like a book and completely snuffed out our attack. What little attack we were able to muster that is given we were getting pulverized up front.
It was Rassie that showed the way back in '018, read the stale AB attack strategy like a book and set out his defensive stall accordingly. The Bokke nicked the Welly test and damn near did it again in Pretoria, I think it was Savea that managed to score at the death to salvage the win, he did that with a pack that didn't exactly dominate either. Later in Nov. Jonkers saved the day at Twickers and Schmidt finished them off a week later.
Ben Smith @ RugbyPass did a great game by game analysis of the '018 shit show, well worth a read.
User avatar
Ted.
Posts: 17461
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by Ted. »

Bayern wrote:
booji boy wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:Indeed, and I found it rather delicious when Wayne Smith came out in the media and skewered our pitiful attacking strategy in his analysis of the game.

Presumably he isn't best mates with then-attack coach Ian Foster.
Yeah I heard that too. I thought he was pretty scathing considering how recently he had been involved with the team. He described the tactics which worked a treat against Ireland but Eddie Jones and England read them like a book and completely snuffed out our attack. What little attack we were able to muster that is given we were getting pulverized up front.
It was Rassie that showed the way back in '018, read the stale AB attack strategy like a book and set out his defensive stall accordingly. The Bokke nicked the Welly test and damn near did it again in Pretoria, I think it was Savea that managed to score at the death to salvage the win, he did that with a pack that didn't exactly dominate either. Later in Nov. Jonkers saved the day at Twickers and Schmidt finished them off a week later.
Ben Smith @ RugbyPass did a great game by game analysis of the '018 shit show, well worth a read.
Rassie threw the first pool match against the ABs!

I take your point that we were trying, more or less, the same stale crap in the RWC we'd been struggling with the previous two years at least. Foster was assuring us it was all about to click, then they decided that the old hands weren't good enough to execute. Well, that was correct in some instances, but they threw the dirty water, the baby and the tub.
User avatar
booji boy
Posts: 8889
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by booji boy »

Ted. wrote:
Bayern wrote:
booji boy wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:Indeed, and I found it rather delicious when Wayne Smith came out in the media and skewered our pitiful attacking strategy in his analysis of the game.

Presumably he isn't best mates with then-attack coach Ian Foster.
Yeah I heard that too. I thought he was pretty scathing considering how recently he had been involved with the team. He described the tactics which worked a treat against Ireland but Eddie Jones and England read them like a book and completely snuffed out our attack. What little attack we were able to muster that is given we were getting pulverized up front.
It was Rassie that showed the way back in '018, read the stale AB attack strategy like a book and set out his defensive stall accordingly. The Bokke nicked the Welly test and damn near did it again in Pretoria, I think it was Savea that managed to score at the death to salvage the win, he did that with a pack that didn't exactly dominate either. Later in Nov. Jonkers saved the day at Twickers and Schmidt finished them off a week later.
Ben Smith @ RugbyPass did a great game by game analysis of the '018 shit show, well worth a read.
Rassie threw the first pool match against the ABs!

I take your point that we were trying, more or less, the same stale crap in the RWC we'd been struggling with the previous two years at least. Foster was assuring us it was all about to click, then they decided that the old hands weren't good enough to execute. Well, that was correct in some instances, but they threw the dirty water, the baby and the tub.
The dual playmaker role would have worked a treat and we would brought back Bill if only Damien Mckenzie hadn't been injured. His injury scuppered Fozzie and Ted's masterplan. Beaunga was never going to be a patch on McBarret.
User avatar
HouseOfPane
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:27 am
Location: The Glasshouse

Re: Suspicion still exists wrong man was given All Black rol

Post by HouseOfPane »

booji boy wrote:
Ted. wrote:
Bayern wrote:
booji boy wrote:
jdogscoop wrote:Indeed, and I found it rather delicious when Wayne Smith came out in the media and skewered our pitiful attacking strategy in his analysis of the game.

Presumably he isn't best mates with then-attack coach Ian Foster.
Yeah I heard that too. I thought he was pretty scathing considering how recently he had been involved with the team. He described the tactics which worked a treat against Ireland but Eddie Jones and England read them like a book and completely snuffed out our attack. What little attack we were able to muster that is given we were getting pulverized up front.
It was Rassie that showed the way back in '018, read the stale AB attack strategy like a book and set out his defensive stall accordingly. The Bokke nicked the Welly test and damn near did it again in Pretoria, I think it was Savea that managed to score at the death to salvage the win, he did that with a pack that didn't exactly dominate either. Later in Nov. Jonkers saved the day at Twickers and Schmidt finished them off a week later.
Ben Smith @ RugbyPass did a great game by game analysis of the '018 shit show, well worth a read.
Rassie threw the first pool match against the ABs!

I take your point that we were trying, more or less, the same stale crap in the RWC we'd been struggling with the previous two years at least. Foster was assuring us it was all about to click, then they decided that the old hands weren't good enough to execute. Well, that was correct in some instances, but they threw the dirty water, the baby and the tub.
The dual playmaker role would have worked a treat and we would brought back Bill if only Damien Mckenzie hadn't been injured. His injury scuppered Fozzie and Ted's masterplan. Beaunga was never going to be a patch on McBarret.
McBarrett is Jordie's nickname - he earned it on that fateful dunners night.

I personally do not think McKenzie would have made a difference against England - I believe they would have smothered him like everyone else. Timing was the problem, they tinkered too late in the WC cycle, and were stupid enough to think it would have worked.
Post Reply