Chat Forum
It is currently Sun Aug 09, 2020 3:07 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: Wed Jul 29, 2020 9:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4894
https://youtu.be/em0cfhGE5HM


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2020 9:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 8671
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?


Henry had won multiple titles at every level he coached at, NPC, Super Rugby, Tri Nations, Bledisloe Cup etc. His one major failure was the 2007 RWC and I'd say the biggest criticism was the reconditioning programme he had all the All Blacks on that year. Backfired big time as the team never seemed to be match fit having missed half the Super Rugby season.

Outside that one big failure as coach Henry had an outstanding record as a head coach. I guess the 2001 Lions series is also a failure but his team lost a close, exciting series to a very fine Wallabies team. The 2005 Lions under Woodwatd were an utter disaster (versus a Henry coached NZ) and Ian McGeechan lost the Lion series in 2009 but always seemed to get credit despite losing.

Foster's record as a head coach should not even be mentioned in the same breath as Sir Graham.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2020 10:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28681
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 29, 2020 10:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:23 am
Posts: 836
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!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28222
Location: Queensland
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?


Except both those case had successful bodies of work as Head Coaches prior to being gifted the AB job. In the starkest of contrasts Ian Foster's previous head coaching jobs have been defined by mediocrity, failure and shame. Even his staunchest of supporters would have to admit that he only has the job because he was close friends with Steve Hansen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 8671
Ali's Choice 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?


Except both those case had successful bodies of work as Head Coaches prior to being gifted the AB job. In the starkest of contrasts Ian Foster's previous head coaching jobs have been defined by mediocrity, failure and shame. Even his staunchest of supporters would have to admit that he only has the job because he was close friends with Steve Hansen.


I felt it was enough of a rort that he got an assistant role in 2012 given his miserable resume. For him to subsequently get the top job is nothing short of criminal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14195
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?


Henry in 2004 was the most successful coach in Auckland and Blues history, with bucketloads of international experience including at Lions level. Hansen in 2012 was a proven success as an assistant coach at all levels of the game, with question marks over his ability to be a successful head coach but at least with international experience in that role.

Foster has none of these things.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28681
Ali's Choice 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?


Except both those case had successful bodies of work as Head Coaches prior to being gifted the AB job. In the starkest of contrasts Ian Foster's previous head coaching jobs have been defined by mediocrity, failure and shame. Even his staunchest of supporters would have to admit that he only has the job because he was close friends with Steve Hansen.


Steve Hansen hardly had any great test records though. In fact he had just come off the worst ever run of losses Wales ever had.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 8671
naki 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?


Henry in 2004 was the most successful coach in Auckland and Blues history, with bucketloads of international experience including at Lions level. Hansen in 2012 was a proven success as an assistant coach at all levels of the game, with question marks over his ability to be a successful head coach but at least with international experience in that role.

Foster has none of these things.


Hansen successfully coached Canterbury to a provincial title in 2001 too I think. I recall hearing him being interviewed on the radio prior to a much hyped match with Auckland. Carlos Spencer had been cutting capers against lesser teams and the radio interviewer was asking how they would contain King Carlos. In that droll voice of his Hansen replied "Yeah well we've got a bloke playing No.10 who's not a bad player himself." (Merhtens).

Canterbury ran out comfortable winners over Carlo's headless chooks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 8671
eldanielfire wrote:
Ali's Choice 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?


Except both those case had successful bodies of work as Head Coaches prior to being gifted the AB job. In the starkest of contrasts Ian Foster's previous head coaching jobs have been defined by mediocrity, failure and shame. Even his staunchest of supporters would have to admit that he only has the job because he was close friends with Steve Hansen.


Steve Hansen hardly had any great test records though. In fact he had just come off the worst ever run of losses Wales ever had.


He did cop a bit of a hospital pass from Henry though didn't he.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28222
Location: Queensland
eldanielfire wrote:
Ali's Choice 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?


Except both those case had successful bodies of work as Head Coaches prior to being gifted the AB job. In the starkest of contrasts Ian Foster's previous head coaching jobs have been defined by mediocrity, failure and shame. Even his staunchest of supporters would have to admit that he only has the job because he was close friends with Steve Hansen.


Steve Hansen hardly had any great test records though. In fact he had just come off the worst ever run of losses Wales ever had.


He'd won silverware as a head coach though. Something Foster never did. No-one in NZ expected much from Steve Hansen at Wales, it just gave him some international experience to fatten out his CV.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 2:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13460
Location: Melbourne
Ali's Choice wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Ali's Choice 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?


Except both those case had successful bodies of work as Head Coaches prior to being gifted the AB job. In the starkest of contrasts Ian Foster's previous head coaching jobs have been defined by mediocrity, failure and shame. Even his staunchest of supporters would have to admit that he only has the job because he was close friends with Steve Hansen.


Steve Hansen hardly had any great test records though. In fact he had just come off the worst ever run of losses Wales ever had.


He'd won silverware as a head coach though. Something Foster never did. No-one in NZ expected much from Steve Hansen at Wales, it just gave him some international experience to fatten out his CV.


Anyone who doesn't agree that Scott Robertson was clearly the best man for the job is just arguing for fun.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 2:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14195
eldanielfire wrote:
Ali's Choice 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?


Except both those case had successful bodies of work as Head Coaches prior to being gifted the AB job. In the starkest of contrasts Ian Foster's previous head coaching jobs have been defined by mediocrity, failure and shame. Even his staunchest of supporters would have to admit that he only has the job because he was close friends with Steve Hansen.


Steve Hansen hardly had any great test records though. In fact he had just come off the worst ever run of losses Wales ever had.


He hadn't "just come off" that record, it was already 8 years after his Welsh experience and since that time he'd been part of one of the most successful eras in All Black rugby history. Along with his provincial/SR achievements he had far more runs on the board than Foster has now.

Hansen's credentials were also questioned at that time of his appointment, but his case was much stronger than Foster's.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 2:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10477
Location: Texas
naki wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Ali's Choice 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?


Except both those case had successful bodies of work as Head Coaches prior to being gifted the AB job. In the starkest of contrasts Ian Foster's previous head coaching jobs have been defined by mediocrity, failure and shame. Even his staunchest of supporters would have to admit that he only has the job because he was close friends with Steve Hansen.


Steve Hansen hardly had any great test records though. In fact he had just come off the worst ever run of losses Wales ever had.

He hadn't "just come off" that record, it was already 8 years after his Welsh experience and since that time he'd been part of one of the most successful eras in All Black rugby history. Along with his provincial/SR achievements he had far more runs on the board than Foster has now.

Hansen's credentials were also questioned at that time of his appointment, but his case was much stronger than Foster's.

I think the comparison was when Hansen was coming in as an assistant, like Fossie, not taking the head job.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 2:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:30 am
Posts: 133
naki wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Ali's Choice 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?


Except both those case had successful bodies of work as Head Coaches prior to being gifted the AB job. In the starkest of contrasts Ian Foster's previous head coaching jobs have been defined by mediocrity, failure and shame. Even his staunchest of supporters would have to admit that he only has the job because he was close friends with Steve Hansen.


Steve Hansen hardly had any great test records though. In fact he had just come off the worst ever run of losses Wales ever had.


He hadn't "just come off" that record, it was already 8 years after his Welsh experience and since that time he'd been part of one of the most successful eras in All Black rugby history. Along with his provincial/SR achievements he had far more runs on the board than Foster has now.

Hansen's credentials were also questioned at that time of his appointment, but his case was much stronger than Foster's.


Hansen's head-coaching credentials weren't stronger than Foster.

Hansen had only inherited winning teams (apart from Wales) that Deans/Smith had built for him.

Hansen was the worst Wales coach in history, 33% win percentage and only managed wins over Italy, Scotland, Tonga, Canada and Romania.

In contrast, Graham Henry finished with a 60% win record with Wales.


Last edited by deverix on Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:11 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14195
deverix wrote:

Hansen's credentials weren't stronger than Foster.

Hansen had only inherited winning teams (apart from Wales) that Deans/Smith had build for him.

Hansen was the worst Wales coach in history, 33% win percentage and only managed wins over Italy, Scotland, Tonga, Canada and Romania.

In contrast, Graham Henry finished with a 60% win record with Wales.


... and it would have been madness to give Hansen the head AB role in 2004


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2015 5:14 am
Posts: 6916
Location: NZ
naki wrote:
deverix wrote:

Hansen's credentials weren't stronger than Foster.

Hansen had only inherited winning teams (apart from Wales) that Deans/Smith had build for him.

Hansen was the worst Wales coach in history, 33% win percentage and only managed wins over Italy, Scotland, Tonga, Canada and Romania.

In contrast, Graham Henry finished with a 60% win record with Wales.


... and it would have been madness to give Hansen the head AB role in 2004

Plus, anyone suggesting that Hansen had only inherited winning sides is clearly forgetting Canterbury rugby in the early 1990s. When he took Canterbury to the NPC title in 1997 they hadn’t won since the 1983. That’s a 14 year break from winning, and he did it again in 2001. His credentials in after 2011 were clearly better than Foster’s are now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:30 am
Posts: 133
JB1981 wrote:
naki wrote:
deverix wrote:

Hansen's credentials weren't stronger than Foster.

Hansen had only inherited winning teams (apart from Wales) that Deans/Smith had build for him.

Hansen was the worst Wales coach in history, 33% win percentage and only managed wins over Italy, Scotland, Tonga, Canada and Romania.

In contrast, Graham Henry finished with a 60% win record with Wales.


... and it would have been madness to give Hansen the head AB role in 2004

Plus, anyone suggesting that Hansen had only inherited winning sides is clearly forgetting Canterbury rugby in the early 1990s. When he took Canterbury to the NPC title in 1997 they hadn’t won since the 1983.




That was Robbie Deans. From Wikipedia:

"Deans was appointed as coach of the Canterbury team for the 1997 National Provincial Championship (NPC) season."

"Deans' first season was a success, with Canterbury beating Auckland for the first time in 14 years, then going on to win the title."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:30 am
Posts: 133
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.


Last edited by deverix on Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:54 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2015 5:14 am
Posts: 6916
Location: NZ
deverix wrote:
JB1981 wrote:
naki wrote:
deverix wrote:

Hansen's credentials weren't stronger than Foster.

Hansen had only inherited winning teams (apart from Wales) that Deans/Smith had build for him.

Hansen was the worst Wales coach in history, 33% win percentage and only managed wins over Italy, Scotland, Tonga, Canada and Romania.

In contrast, Graham Henry finished with a 60% win record with Wales.


... and it would have been madness to give Hansen the head AB role in 2004

Plus, anyone suggesting that Hansen had only inherited winning sides is clearly forgetting Canterbury rugby in the early 1990s. When he took Canterbury to the NPC title in 1997 they hadn’t won since the 1983.




That was Robbie Deans. From Wikipedia:

"Deans was appointed as coach of the Canterbury team for the 1997 National Provincial Championship (NPC) season."

"Deans' first season was a success, with Canterbury beating Auckland for the first time in 14 years, then going on to win the title."

My memory has let me down. Still, facts won’t change my opinion ;).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 8671
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.


Sheesh! When you put it like that Foster is obviously an assistant coaching genius having to overcome all of Hansen's shortcomings in that highly successful 2012-2019 period.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:30 am
Posts: 133
booji boy 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.


Sheesh! When you put it like that Foster is obviously an assistant coaching genius having to overcome all of Hansen's shortcomings in that highly successful 2012-2019 period.


Hansen's coaching depository is very similar to Cheika, he's great at motivating his players but poor with regards to tactics/game-plan and the technical side of coaching, hence why we got out-foxed by Jones, Schmidt, Gatland etc.. on far too many occasions).

Hansen did a lot for the All Black's culture and basically like John Hart; he was a good manager, but he was always lacking in the actual coaching department. He assistant role in 2004 was questionable sitting alongside vastly superior coaches in Ted and Henry. I still remember the All Black's line-out and forwards an absolute shambles during the 2008-2009 seasons. It prompted a re-shuffle of the coaching group before the 2010 season, Henry taking over the forwards and Smith moving to Defense. We had a staggeringly good run after that change, going on a something like 16 game unbeaten run (this was back when Australia and SA were 2nd and 3rd in the world respectively, and we played them twice as often).

Hansen presided as ABs coach during a period in which world rugby was at it's weakest ever, Argentina had joined the Rugby Championship, Australia were 2nd tier under Cheika, and our Super Rugby teams were more stacked than ever. The depth in NZ rugby was far greater than when Henry was AB coach.

Wayne Smith and Graham Henry were very technical and analytical coaches.

Steve Hansen was simply a good man-manager who had no idea about strategy, tactical side of the game, nor the technical side of coaching itself, an extremely ineffective forwards coach during his time.

Without the tactical acumen and technical expertise of Henry and Smith, the All Blacks sustained dominance simply doesn't happen. And without those two, Hansen is just your average oldschool motivational-style provincial coach.


Last edited by deverix on Thu Jul 30, 2020 6:20 am, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 8671
So how do you explain that incredibly successful 2012-15 period when Henry and Smith were gone? Or did Smith come back for RWC 2015?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:30 am
Posts: 133
booji boy wrote:
So how do you explain that incredibly successful 2012-15 period when Henry and Smith were gone? Or did Smith come back for RWC 2015?


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.

Hansen just copied and pasted the template and was lost at sea once the rest of the world caught up with the All Blacks a few years later, when transformative coaching and fresh ideas were required.

And Smith did return in 2015, the All Blacks were barely getting by in 2014, scrappy, 2-3 point wins aplenty relying on moments of individual x-factor. When Smith returned for the World Cup the team's performance and overall cohesion improved considerably.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 5:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:58 am
Posts: 3443
Name a NZ Super Rugby coach that has taken a worse team than Fosters 09 Chief's to the Super Rugby Final...

Top analysis Deverix although I wouldnt say World Rugby was at its weakest during Hansen's tenure but Southern Hemisphere Rugby was. Our Northern counterparts were probably the strongest they've ever been under Southern Hemisphere coaching staff combined with strategic poaching and decades of Southern Hemisphere retirees progeny filling their ranks.

I reckon the Cane appointment was a middle finger to Hansen's disastrous Scott Barrett selection in Japan.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 6:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:23 am
Posts: 836
World rugby was weakest just after 87 world cup. NZ was so far ahead tests were absolutely boring!! Anyone who says different are talking through a hole in their heads!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 6:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 8671
[url][/url]
Dan54. wrote:
World rugby was weakest just after 87 world cup. NZ was so far ahead tests were absolutely boring!! Anyone who says different are talking through a hole in their heads!


Well we played probably less than half the tests we do these days. I wouldn't say the 1988 Bledisloe Cup series was boring. Yes thumping Wales by nearly 50 points was boring but the Boks were still in isolation and we didn't play the Poms until the 1991 RWC where we only put them away by one score. The 1989 northern tour wasn't boring and in 1990 the Wallabies were developing and beat us in the 3rd test and surpassed us the following year. We beat France in 1990 but those tests were competitive and far from boring.

Anyway all a bit pointless comparing the amateur era from over 30 years ago.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 6:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4185
deverix wrote:

Hansen's coaching depository is very similar to Cheika, he's great at motivating his players but poor with regards to tactics/game-plan and the technical side of coaching, hence why we got out-foxed by Jones, Schmidt, Gatland on far too many occasions).

Hansen did a lot for the All Black's culture and basically like John Hart; he was a good manager, but he was always lacking in the actual coaching department. He assistant role in 2004 was questionable sitting alongside vastly superior coaches in Ted and Henry. I still remember the All Black's line-out and forwards an absolute shambles during the 2008-2009 seasons. It prompted a re-shuffle of the coaching group before the 2010 season, Henry taking over the forwards and Smith moving to Defense. We had a staggeringly good run after that change, going on a something like 16 game unbeaten run (this was back when Australia and SA were 2nd and 3rd in the world respectively, and we played them twice as often).

Hansen presided as ABs coach during a period in which world rugby was at it's weakest ever, Argentina had joined the Rugby Championship, Australia were 2nd tier under Cheika, and our Super Rugby teams were more stacked than ever. The depth in NZ rugby was far greater than when Henry was AB coach.

Wayne Smith and Graham Henry were very technical and analytical coaches.

Steve Hansen was simply a good man-manager who had no idea about strategy, tactical side of the game, nor the technical side of coaching itself, an extremely ineffective forwards coach during his time.

Without the tactical acumen and technical expertise of Henry and Smith, the All Blacks sustained dominance simply doesn't happen. And without those two, Hansen is just your average oldschool motivational-style provincial coach.


Rugby Championship:

2012 Played 6 won 6
2013 Played 6 won 6
2014 Played 6 won 4 draw 1 lost 1
2015 Played 3 won 2 lost 1
2016 Played 6 won 6
2017 Played 6 won 6
2018 Played 6 won 5 lost 1
2019 Played 3 won 1 draw 1 lost 1


This is far better than any other coach has achieved including Graham Henry, and those '16 and '17 slams have nothing to do with any legacy Henry left over.

Rugby is an intricate team game, you cannot simply turn up with the best 23 players and win games. You have to prepare, strategise, and gel to win a test match.


Last edited by Sonny Blount on Thu Jul 30, 2020 6:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 6:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 8671
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 6:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:30 am
Posts: 133
Sonny Blount wrote:
deverix wrote:

Hansen's coaching depository is very similar to Cheika, he's great at motivating his players but poor with regards to tactics/game-plan and the technical side of coaching, hence why we got out-foxed by Jones, Schmidt, Gatland on far too many occasions).

Hansen did a lot for the All Black's culture and basically like John Hart; he was a good manager, but he was always lacking in the actual coaching department. He assistant role in 2004 was questionable sitting alongside vastly superior coaches in Ted and Henry. I still remember the All Black's line-out and forwards an absolute shambles during the 2008-2009 seasons. It prompted a re-shuffle of the coaching group before the 2010 season, Henry taking over the forwards and Smith moving to Defense. We had a staggeringly good run after that change, going on a something like 16 game unbeaten run (this was back when Australia and SA were 2nd and 3rd in the world respectively, and we played them twice as often).

Hansen presided as ABs coach during a period in which world rugby was at it's weakest ever, Argentina had joined the Rugby Championship, Australia were 2nd tier under Cheika, and our Super Rugby teams were more stacked than ever. The depth in NZ rugby was far greater than when Henry was AB coach.

Wayne Smith and Graham Henry were very technical and analytical coaches.

Steve Hansen was simply a good man-manager who had no idea about strategy, tactical side of the game, nor the technical side of coaching itself, an extremely ineffective forwards coach during his time.

Without the tactical acumen and technical expertise of Henry and Smith, the All Blacks sustained dominance simply doesn't happen. And without those two, Hansen is just your average oldschool motivational-style provincial coach.


Rugby Championship:

2012 Played 6 won 6
2013 Played 6 won 6
2014 Played 6 won 4 draw 1 lost 1
2015 Played 3 won 2 lost 1
2016 Played 6 won 6
2017 Played 6 won 6
2018 Played 6 won 5 lost 1
2019 Played 3 won 1 draw 1 lost 1


This is far better than any other coach has achieved including Graham Henry, and those '16 and '17 slams have nothing to do with any legacy Henry left over.

Rugby is an intricate team game, you cannot simply turn up with the best 23 players and win games. You have to prepare, strategise, and gel to win a test match.



You're an utter moron if you think bullying the worst Wallabies outfit since 1940, and worst Springbok side in history (who were missing all their overseas players until they were allowed to come back for the 2019 world cup), and Argentina ranked 10th in the world, is something of an achievement.

You're also ignoring that the Rugby Championship was only introduced in 2012.

When Henry was AB coach, the Wallabies and Boks were ranked 2nd and 3rd respectively in the world, and the Rugby Championship didn't exist back then. The All Blacks played the Wallabies and Boks 3-4 times a year. Hansen got to play Argentina twice every year and less games against other teams.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 7:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4185
deverix wrote:


You're an utter moron if you think bullying the worst Wallabies outfit since 1940, and worst Springbok side in history (who were missing all their overseas players until they were allowed to come back for the 2019 world cup), and Argentina ranked 10th in the world, is something of an achievement.

You're also ignoring that the Rugby Championship was only introduced in 2012.

When Henry was AB coach, the Wallabies and Boks were ranked 2nd and 3rd respectively in the world, and the Rugby Championship didn't exist back then. The All Blacks played the Wallabies and Boks 3-4 times a year. Hansen got to play Argentina twice every year and less games against other teams.



There are a lot of buts there.

03-11 Tri-Nations record:
w-31 d-0 l-9
5 titles 1 slam

12-19 RC record vs AU & SA
w-22 d-2 l-4
6 titles 4 slams

Nothing wrong with Hansen's record.

Henry played against shithouse English, Irish, & Scottish teams.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 7:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 12:30 am
Posts: 133
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.


Last edited by deverix on Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 12:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13460
Location: Melbourne
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 8:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28681
naki wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
Ali's Choice 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?


Except both those case had successful bodies of work as Head Coaches prior to being gifted the AB job. In the starkest of contrasts Ian Foster's previous head coaching jobs have been defined by mediocrity, failure and shame. Even his staunchest of supporters would have to admit that he only has the job because he was close friends with Steve Hansen.


Steve Hansen hardly had any great test records though. In fact he had just come off the worst ever run of losses Wales ever had.


He hadn't "just come off" that record, it was already 8 years after his Welsh experience and since that time he'd been part of one of the most successful eras in All Black rugby history. Along with his provincial/SR achievements he had far more runs on the board than Foster has now.

Hansen's credentials were also questioned at that time of his appointment, but his case was much stronger than Foster's.



A similar story for Foster. I'm not arguing that he was the best choice or even will be a good one. And of course outside Scott Robertson looks the best choice by far, only lacking test experience. What I am saying is NZ rugby is pretty much one of the best run and most intelligent unions in Rugby. They have seen Foster at work with the All Blacks (as good an audition as you can get surely?), heard what players and their highly successful world cup winning ex-coach had to say and believe he will be a good choice.

I'm not arguing for Ian Foster BTW, I'm arguing against that Ian Foster is some sort of failure who charmed his way to the top. There are good slid and logical reasons he was chosen. There are logical reasons to not choose Robertson who could be Robbie Deans at test level. It's not as clear cut as PR posters are presenting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 30, 2020 8:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28681
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 9:12 am
Posts: 8671
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.

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3709
Clogs wrote:
S'funny I thought this might be about some poor unfortunate South African that got sick from food poisoning in 1995.



Role. Bread roll. Anyone. Is this thing on? Testing testing 1..2...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12676
booji boy wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:

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.

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.

He injured himself in the warm ups and shouldn't have been kicking at all.

Eldanielfire: Mitchell is working under Jones, put him in at head coach and the wonders will cease - as evidenced from all of his head coach roles where he leaves in acrimonious circumstances.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 12676
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 31, 2020 2:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13460
Location: Melbourne
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.


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, AnkleTap, camroc1, CarrotGawks, EverReady, Google Adsense [Bot], hermie, johnstrac, Pat the Ex Mat, sockwithaticket, Stevus55, towny and 50 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