Hansen's recent record
I think that the problem of Hansen’s coaching since 2015 - coinciding with Read’s captaincy - is that at the two biggest points in this cycle, that is the Lions and WC (so not even counting the embarrassing first loss to the Irish which Read captained) we just didn’t produce. So, overall, the winning percentage is great and we look amazing.
However equally, my NH friends argue (with some reason) that these are the only two times we ever play the NH when they have purpose to be truly at their best - the 6N is generally their yearly focus. So, in some ways, it’s a misleading percentage because we are 0/2 at the highest level during the last four years.
So, when I see people explaining away this loss - the manner of this loss - by talking about how great England were and how good Hansen has been (i.e., that shit happens and sometimes teams are just a bit better), I don’t get it.
Of course, that doesn’t mean he hasn’t been an outstanding coach, but he can’t be in the very top echelon of coaches - at least not since 2015 - because when it has mattered - and when he didn’t have McCaw and Carter - he couldn’t get a good enough game plan to fulfill even one of his two most important KPIs during the last four years.
Beyond that, he’s the first coach to lose to the Irish, and was one good performance from losing the Bled. Literally, the best thing we can say about the last four years is ‘at least we still hold the Bled and didn’t go out earlier than Australia. Plus, we didn’t exactly lose to the Lions.’
Wow. I can’t believe that’s acceptable.
Now, he’ll always be special for the 2015 team, but his key successes will always be tied to a team that probably had 5 (or more) all time All Blacks in it. I feel sympathy for him, and I think he’s a funny and engaging coach who clearly loves the game and the ABs. I’d love to shake his hand and say thank you. I can’t imagine the stress and effort he has put in.
But, he should be evaluated by his results - the ones that matter. He has not strengthened the AB legacy by staying on for two more years. He should have rightly gone after 2017 - when he started ignoring future AB greats (thanks for the message Steven), while keeping his favorites around too long (Owen Franks) and trying to find ‘athletes’ (Fifita) to get us over the line, rather than a structure to beat the Lions and final at this WC that didn’t rely on them giving us opportunities.
We aren’t a better team now, than we were then.
@taniwharugby said in Hansen:
I reckon a 2 year contract with a performance related extension built written in
For various reason it's a shame Hansen didn't keep his promise to leave after the Lions.
He was correct, it would be good to move away from the 4 year cycle that is linked to the RWC
@Duluth Coastie was at least implying that.
Nor have I anywhere said that every criticism is invalid. I have said you can never prove the alternatives - there is only one shot and it is Hansen's.
I had coffee with Hanson once .
I stopped off at Streetwise coffee in Otaki for a flat white he was there with what I assume were some of the coaching staff . It was just after Andy Haden had just called him out for being a forward coach because he was too fat to coach the backs .
I was going to say something complimentary about the previous weekends game but an absolute stunner joined the queue for a coffee . Every guy there stopped talking , seeing a woman that hot in Otaki is like spotting a snow leopard in the wild .
I’m sure he understood
I took a weekend off thinking about it, in general vaguely hearing about how sensitive and gracious everybody seemed to be about it all, "as a nation" "ïn the current climate" etc, even on radio sport.
So was slightly amused but not at all surprised to awaken in here this evening to a full-on circlejerk in full steam, all frothy and covered in shit.
We lost fair and square, bigtime, to another team that played out of their skins. Just like the Lions did. If we had turned up at 89% of our effort in the Irish game the previous week, we would have won. Instead we turned up at 50%.
So why couldn't the players back it up? As a team there was a massive drop in performance, who's culpable for that? It is a massive challenge doing it consistently as they have done at a level higher than any of the competition for the last however many decades, but it is their unique challenge, and ultimately it is a leadership and management issue.
So of course we need to Blame Foster.
@PecoTrain said in Hansen:
Based on performances in yesterdays game, the players I expected more from were Taylor, Whitelock, Retallick, Savea and Read. I'm ignoring backs for now - we lost this game in the forwards. We missed Savea in support at breakdowns (other than that he played well and improved when Cane came on) and the other four an uncharacteristic number of errors compared to their usual games. SB made errors too, but I'm giving him a pass based on coaches playing him out of position and the props did enough.
I've never felt Ardie was a classic Kiwi 7. Wonderful loosie and has been phenomenal this year, BUT not his forte to hold the fort against the twin English opensides, both who were very good. Cane would have been better, and maybe even Todd. Ardie was fine at 6 against Boks, and probably better there.
All said and done the loss of Ritchie/Jerome/Dan and Ma'a was always going to be huge. Take them on 2015 form and plonk them in on Saturday and we win. Which isn't really saying much as each has a strong claim to be in the best AB (and World) XV of the pro era.
@PecoTrain said in Hansen:
Based on performances in yesterdays game, the players I expected more from were Taylor, Whitelock, Retallick, Savea and Read. I'm ignoring backs for now - we lost this game in the forwards. We missed Savea in support at breakdowns (other than that he played well and improved when Cane came on) and the other four an uncharacteristic number of errors compared to their usual games. SB made errors too, but I'm giving him a pass based on coaches playing him out of position and the props did enough.
I've never felt Ardie was a classic Kiwi 7. Wonderful loosie and has been phenomenal this year, BUT not his forte to hold the fort against the twin English opensides, both who were very good. Cane would have been better, and maybe even Todd. Ardie was fine at 6 against Boks, and probably better there.
Todd isn't up to this level. Cane should've been our openside with Luatua on the blind. Part of the planning two and a half years out...
All said and done the loss of Ritchie/Jerome/Dan and Ma'a was always going to be huge. Take them on 2015 form and plonk them in on Saturday and we win. Which isn't really saying much as each has a strong claim to be in the best AB (and World) XV of the pro era.
TBF - that's like selecting half of a best ever AB XV.
@antipodean almost agree ... but where for Ardie? He was our best player this year. He simply must start.
@MajorRage said in Hansen:
@antipodean almost agree ... but where for Ardie? He was our best player this year. He simply must start.
I'd have him at 8 moving forwards. He's dynamic off the back of the scrum and has a massive work rate like So'oialo. Would like to see us return to a big bopper at 6.
@gt12 i think there is a fair bit in that.
On the surface the last 4 years brings an 83% win rate, and that looks glorious.
Dig a little deeper and the story changes a bit
England at the same time have won 80%. We only played them twice, for a bad loss, and the narrowest of wins
Ireland have 71%, we lost to them twice.
Most of our games are against the RC teams. And they have had a pretty shit time of it. The saffers have won 58% of their games. The Wallabies 44%. And Argentina a pathetic 22%. We gt to pad our stats against some pretty ordinary sides.
When it counts, we've not covered ourselves in glory. Unless it's a must-win against Aus at Eden Park.
Of course, that doesn’t mean he hasn’t been an outstanding coach, but he can’t be in the very top echelon of coaches - at least not since 2015 - because when it has mattered - and when he didn’t have McCaw and Carter - he couldn’t get a good enough game plan to fulfill even one of his two most important KPIs during the last four years.
You would have to say 0/3. The rhetoric going into the EOYT tour last year is that it was a RWC dress rehearsal and outside of banking the Bledisloe it was the most important goal. Before the Irish test he said unequivocally that it was a battle for number one and the team was preparing accordingly.
As we saw in the last week talk is cheap. But given the major logistical operation, and decision to christen a handful of 1-test All Blacks it would be hard to argue the ABs weren't absolutely gunning for those two tests last year.
@antipodean When has Todd played badly for the ABs? Actually, I would argue he is the type of player we need. The old fashioned, nuggety flanker who would have been perfect against those two English lads in the loose.
I think that the problem of Hansen’s coaching since 2015 - coinciding with Read’s captaincy - is that at the two biggest points in this cycle, that is the Lions and WC (so not even counting the embarrassing first loss to the Irish which Read captained) we just didn’t produce. So, overall, the winning percentage is great and we look amazing. However equally, my NH friends argue (with some reason) that these are the only two times we ever play the NH when they have purpose to be truly at their best - the 6N is generally their yearly focus. So, in some ways, it’s a misleading percentage because we are 0/2 at the highest level during the last four years.
I have a different view of the Lions. They were lucky to draw that series - you can't say the coaching cost us there. SBW has a brain fart (and we still damn near win that test), and then a horror refereeing call at the end to cost us the chance of a win. That, and we got ripped apart by injury - we had nearly peak Ben Smith out in the first 20 minutes, debutantes in Laumape, ALB (or close to it I think), and maybe Jordie? Then Naholo out with broken jaw from swinging arm (no consequences for SOB), and the Lions really didn't lose anyone. For me, we win that series almost every time, and I reckon we were up for it properly.
Denigrating Ireland is tough on the team too; they were No 1 in the world going into the tournament, and while Japan beat them, they still brought it at times against us. We just snuffed out what they did do.
So, I'm taking a different view - it was a flat performance, England played out of their skins, and the bounce of the ball just didn't go our way. That happens in top sport sometimes.
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Hansen:
@antipodean When has Todd played badly for the ABs?
See Ireland quarter final.
Actually, I would argue he is the type of player we need. The old fashioned, nuggety flanker who would have been perfect against those two English lads in the loose.
He's at best a poorer version of Cane. Why would you select him over the best we have?
the 6N is generally their yearly focus. So, in some ways, it’s a misleading percentage because we are 0/2 at the highest level during the last four years.
by the same token, we are at the end of a long season, so we are nowhere near our best.
Cant recall who it was last week said it appears a slight shift in NZ mentality (from the coaching team) where they go into a test wanting to win (Dublin last year) but at the same time, are tying something differentl they are happy to accept a loss to build on the big picture.
I still think the style we were trying to play (well were, assuming the next coach will change again) was good enough to beat anyone, but we seemed to move away from this and actually played a bit more like Aus v England last week, despite the fact they lost!!
we had nearly peak Ben Smith out in the first 20 minutes
Smith was fully fit for the third test and Hansen chose not to select him. They misdiagnosed an ear ache as a concussion and clarified before the team was named.
Much like Cane for the SF and Kaino at lock he would need to take responsibility for those calls.
we had nearly peak Ben Smith out in the first 20 minutes
Smith was fully fit for the third test and Hansen chose not to select him. They misdiagnosed an ear ache as a concussion and clarified before the team was named.
Much like Cane for the SF and Kaino at lock he would need to take responsibility for those calls.
A wrong call is not necessarily a bad call. Medical calls are really hard to over-ride; not sure you can blame Hansen for that (although ultimately the buck stops with him)
As for Cane, we've done that to death on another thread; hindsight is easy, but the tactic of 4 lineout forwards and being aggressive isn't a bad idea ... just didn't work.
Kaino v Ireland - if anyone really saw us losing that, well done, but the consensus was that they had injuries, and basically blindsided us.
Edit: on Ben Smith:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/94222617/lions-tour-ben-smith-ruled-out-of-lions-test-series-due-to-concussion-issues
@antipodean He didn't play badly during that game! Even watch when he got the yellow card. He was injured, his arm wasn't working but he still tried to use his body to stop the attacking player. A little silly but total commitment! (Seriously, watch that play again on YouTube and focus on Todd).
Different player to Cane. He is a better pilferer, scavenger than Cane. But I would still play Cane first as well as he is obviously the better player. However, my point, I wouldn't say stupid things like "he isn't up to this level" when clearly he is.
@Nepia I didnt have an issue with the team as it was named, but I thought that was because we had a game plan specific to it, which it appeared we didnt.
In hindsight I think I'd have started SB at lock and Cane and bought BR off the bench.
As for Cane, we've done that to death on another thread; hindsight is easy
It's only getting done to death because posters keep making these comments despite the fact it was pointed out before the match. Foresight MFers!
So I went back and checked - sure enough, you had the knives out and stuck your neck out (well done!). Otherwise it was pretty quiet, and pretty well everyone else was happy enough with the team, assuming we actually attacked their lineout.
Do you think Sam Cane would have made a difference in the team? Or were we going to be spanked anyway
As for Cane, we've done that to death on another thread; hindsight is easy
It's only getting done to death because posters keep making these comments despite the fact it was pointed out before the match. Foresight MFers!
So I went back and checked - sure enough, you had the knives out and stuck your neck out (well done!). Otherwise it was pretty quiet, and pretty well everyone else was happy enough with the team, assuming we actually attacked their lineout.
Do you think Sam Cane would have made a difference in the team? Or were we going to be spanked anyway
The only person that could have helped us on Saturday was Ritchie McCaw. He had learnt how to keep the team composed and structure and not get all score panicky.
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Hansen:
@antipodean He didn't play badly during that game!
Directly responsible for their 14 points. Got a YC. Hardly a glowing endorsement is it?
@antipodean said in Hansen:
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Hansen:
@antipodean He didn't play badly during that game!
Directly responsible for their 14 points. Got a YC. Hardly a glowing endorsement is it?
respectfully, that's weak analysis. There was a fair bit of argument about the PT/YC - take that out, and how did he go?
@antipodean said in Hansen:
@Old-Samurai-Jack said in Hansen:
@antipodean He didn't play badly during that game!
Directly responsible for their 14 points. Got a YC. Hardly a glowing endorsement is it?
respectfully, that's weak analysis.
Mixed with hyperbole it's the best kind around here.
There was a fair bit of argument about the PT/YC - take that out, and how did he go?
The argument was misplaced and he completely missed Henshaw from the scrum.
As for Cane, we've done that to death on another thread; hindsight is easy
It's only getting done to death because posters keep making these comments despite the fact it was pointed out before the match. Foresight MFers!
So I went back and checked - sure enough, you had the knives out and stuck your neck out (well done!). Otherwise it was pretty quiet, and pretty well everyone else was happy enough with the team, assuming we actually attacked their lineout.
Do you think Sam Cane would have made a difference in the team? Or were we going to be spanked anyway
I don't remember being the only one who had an issue at the time ... maybe I was just the only one to put it in a specific post?
We can't know what difference he made, but considering how he blunted the attack of the Irish with his offensive defence, something we surely lacked in the England match, I do think he would have ... and as I noted in my knives post the big issue was it changed the way our loosies had to play.
As for Cane, we've done that to death on another thread; hindsight is easy
It's only getting done to death because posters keep making these comments despite the fact it was pointed out before the match. Foresight MFers!
So I went back and checked - sure enough, you had the knives out and stuck your neck out (well done!). Otherwise it was pretty quiet, and pretty well everyone else was happy enough with the team, assuming we actually attacked their lineout.
Do you think Sam Cane would have made a difference in the team? Or were we going to be spanked anyway
I don't remember being the only one who had an issue at the time ... maybe I was just the only one to put it in a specific post?
We can't know what difference he made, but considering how he blunted the attack of the Irish with his offensive defence, something we surely lacked in the England match, I do think he would have ... and as I noted in my knives post the big issue was it changed the way our loosies had to play.
I did go back - seemed to be mainly you (so well done again for the foresight). I (and a number of others) seemed to see the tradeoff between keeping the trio together, and having an extra lineout option with SB. Unfortunately, it didnt' play out the way that we expected with the tactics ... and so we circle back to hindsight 
As for Cane, we've done that to death on another thread; hindsight is easy
It's only getting done to death because posters keep making these comments despite the fact it was pointed out before the match. Foresight MFers!
So I went back and checked - sure enough, you had the knives out and stuck your neck out (well done!). Otherwise it was pretty quiet, and pretty well everyone else was happy enough with the team, assuming we actually attacked their lineout.
Do you think Sam Cane would have made a difference in the team? Or were we going to be spanked anyway
I don't remember being the only one who had an issue at the time ... maybe I was just the only one to put it in a specific post?
We can't know what difference he made, but considering how he blunted the attack of the Irish with his offensive defence, something we surely lacked in the England match, I do think he would have ... and as I noted in my knives post the big issue was it changed the way our loosies had to play.
I did go back - seemed to be mainly you (so well done again for the foresight). I (and a number of others) seemed to see the tradeoff between keeping the trio together, and having an extra lineout option with SB. Unfortunately, it didnt' play out the way that we expected with the tactics ... and so we circle back to hindsight
TBH, I would rather have been 100% wrong with Jordie Barrett and Sevu Reece finishing shared MoTM.
I think that the problem of Hansen’s coaching since 2015 - coinciding with Read’s captaincy - is that at the two biggest points in this cycle, that is the Lions and WC (so not even counting the embarrassing first loss to the Irish which Read captained) we just didn’t produce. So, overall, the winning percentage is great and we look amazing. However equally, my NH friends argue (with some reason) that these are the only two times we ever play the NH when they have purpose to be truly at their best - the 6N is generally their yearly focus. So, in some ways, it’s a misleading percentage because we are 0/2 at the highest level during the last four years.
You're giving your NH friends an awful lot of concessions to get to this 0/2.
Choosing the starting point to be immediately after RWC 2015 (OK - it's the cycle, but it's a favourable start point for them because otherwise it's 1-0 to us).
Accepting that all the other games between the ABs and NH teams are "Argentine friendlies". The real score against Tier 1 NH opposition is 12-2 and how come we don't ever get to take our eye off the ball?
Giving us 0 for the drawn Lions series (surely we get 0.5) - and I strongly agree with nzzp's assessment that the Lions got the rub of the green in that one.
And, when we get to the World Cup, they get six starters and we get one.
I think that the problem of Hansen’s coaching since 2015 - coinciding with Read’s captaincy - is that at the two biggest points in this cycle, that is the Lions and WC (so not even counting the embarrassing first loss to the Irish which Read captained) we just didn’t produce. So, overall, the winning percentage is great and we look amazing. However equally, my NH friends argue (with some reason) that these are the only two times we ever play the NH when they have purpose to be truly at their best - the 6N is generally their yearly focus. So, in some ways, it’s a misleading percentage because we are 0/2 at the highest level during the last four years.
I have a different view of the Lions. They were lucky to draw that series - you can't say the coaching cost us there. SBW has a brain fart (and we still damn near win that test), and then a horror refereeing call at the end to cost us the chance of a win. That, and we got ripped apart by injury - we had nearly peak Ben Smith out in the first 20 minutes, debutantes in Laumape, ALB (or close to it I think), and maybe Jordie? Then Naholo out with broken jaw from swinging arm (no consequences for SOB), and the Lions really didn't lose anyone. For me, we win that series almost every time, and I reckon we were up for it properly.
Denigrating Ireland is tough on the team too; they were No 1 in the world going into the tournament, and while Japan beat them, they still brought it at times against us. We just snuffed out what they did do.
So, I'm taking a different view - it was a flat performance, England played out of their skins, and the bounce of the ball just didn't go our way. That happens in top sport sometimes.
You’re right about all those unfortunate circumstances, which occurred during the Lions series. However, despite all that, we had the opportunity to win it but failed to do so, indeed playing with the same lack of smarts and composure that we saw 2 years later in this SF loss against England. This for me is the most disappointing thing about how the last 4 years have gone - we seem to have lost that strategic advantage in the top two inches we’d developed since 2007.
@junior Sounds like Foster might already have been having too much input these last few years then.
I think the one contingency maybe no-one banked on, and someone mentioned it here humourously earlier in the game thread, was Ireland coming runner up in their pool. We should have played Scotland or Japan in the Quarter and maybe Wales in the Semi.
England won their group comfortably, so were always going to play Australia or Wales in the QF. Wales won their group.
Based on their performances England would still have been in the SF against NZ.
