[2016 Rugby Championship] New Zealand v Australia (27/08/2016)

[nzlizard]

Not many people play the game here mate... It's literally fallen to out fifth biggest sport on all the important measures (money, popularity, participation etc).

I am not talking about the number of people playing the game but what Aus focused on during the game.

There was a moment when Fardy slapped one of the AB's on the cheek after play and Pocock pats him on the back, this is just one example of many attempts to get under the AB's skin.

What I am talking about is cutting out that ****, it doesn't help your game, in fact it moves your mental focus off the game and onto the opposition players, you become so wound up in trying to find ways to upset your opponents you lose focus on what the first job is and that is to play rugby.

Look at the munter with the shoulder charge, school boy error, all you do is put your team under pressure by doing dumb ****.

If oz focused on the rugby they have players capable of beating the AB's.

 

[die_mole]

You are.
[TEXTAREA]
dis·par·ag·ing

diˈsperijiNG/
adjective
adjective: disparaging
expressing the opinion that something is of little worth;[/TEXTAREA]



I consider this to be a disparaging remark, one that expresses your opinion that Hansen is of little worth to an already excellent team.

IMO, he has taken an already excellent team, and along Wayne Smith and Ian Foster has made it even better. That is an opinion that is pretty much universally agreed among the NZ media,; the same media, by the way, who were so critical of his appointment in 2012.

keeping the all black machine running is not of little worth, it is a skill set that is very impressive

you can say hansen didn't build the system without saying he is worth nothing, obviously he is very good at what he does... which is running the national side with the setup that was in place when took over

 

[Maxwell]

I am not talking about the number of people playing the game but what Aus focused on during the game.

There was a moment when Fardy slapped one of the AB's on the cheek after play and Pocock pats him on the back, this is just one example of many attempts to get under the AB's skin.

What I am talking about is cutting out that ****, it doesn't help your game, in fact it moves your mental focus off the game and onto the opposition players, you become so wound up in trying to find ways to upset your opponents you lose focus on what the first job is and that is to play rugby.

Look at the munter with the shoulder charge, school boy error, all you do is put your team under pressure by doing dumb ****.

If oz focused on the rugby they have players capable of beating the AB's.

The so called commitment and ****le from the Wallabies from the outset told me one thing, the coach didn't believe his players could win by simply playing rugby. The fact it was apparent from the outset should have given the AB's great confidence that once actual play materialised it would be business as usual. Here I think Cheika erred badly.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

The argument here wasn't about Hansen's coaching as a whole since he took over, but in 2015 alone. If we're talking about who's been the best coach over the last few years then that easily goes to Hansen, but in 2015 as an individual year he didn't do much other than work with the foundations set by himself and by Henry in previous years. Which are irrelevant to the 2015 award. Which is why I think that in 2015 Cheika and Jones deserved it more. Cheika took a failing Aussie side to the final of a World Cup and Jones took a tier 2 nation and coached them to beat one of the best sides in World Rugby. Hansen took a team that everyone knew would win the World Cup and they did. You could even argue that warm-up games or not, the fact that Hansen didn't win the RC was a failure on his behalf.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Great news for AB fans, Barrett's signed on in NZ until 2019. Now that he is I can see Hansen putting him back on the bench, but hopefully not, and there may be a clause in Barrett's contract preventing it.

 

[eidde]

I think saying that not winning the 2015 RC was a failure is a bit of a stretch. In RWC year RWC is king, and all other goals are secondary. It seems we had to sacrifice that for the RWC, so we did. It wasn't worth the risk of trying to win it if it meant some stone had stayed unturned on our quest for the Webb Ellis. If team performances in every game throughout the year were the criterion in which the coach of the year was judged, then no Hansen wouldn't come close, and you only have to look at the Namibia game where the all Blacks simply used the Namibians for scrum practice for an example of sacrificing the pursuit of perfection in every game for the good of the ultimate goal.

 

[RoosTah]

You are.
[TEXTAREA]
dis·par·ag·ing

diˈsperijiNG/
adjective
adjective: disparaging
expressing the opinion that something is of little worth;[/TEXTAREA]



I consider this to be a disparaging remark, one that expresses your opinion that Hansen is of little worth to an already excellent team.

IMO, he has taken an already excellent team, and along Wayne Smith and Ian Foster has made it even better. That is an opinion that is pretty much universally agreed among the NZ media,; the same media, by the way, who were so critical of his appointment in 2012.

Wow... You went and even pulled the dictionary definition of disparaging out...

Look mate, if you're a personal friend of Hansen or something I get you might be affronted by my comments - tame though they may be - but I haven't said what he's done is of little worth, just that it's not as big as an achievement as say what Eddie Jones did with Japan because again in coaching the most impressive feats are those achieved by people working with much less than their competitors.

Thats doesnt make Hansen "worthless", it just means his achievements will necessarily be viewed by many as being less difficult to generate than a guy coaching in much less resourced and politically more fractious environment.

What about that you have such a problem with I'm not sure, but it's a fairly common way achievements are judged. Look at it this way, who's achievements are more impressive, James Packers or Elon Musk's? Both are billionaires, but one started out having inherited billions from his daddy and one didn't. Now a lot of billionaires' children stuff everything up and Packer hasn't, so he's clearly not an idiot and deserves credit for the direction he's gone, but what he's done isn't a patch on a guy that started with nothing.

 

[nzlizard]

I think saying that not winning the 2015 RC was a failure is a bit of a stretch. In RWC year RWC is king, and all other goals are secondary. It seems we had to sacrifice that for the RWC, so we did. It wasn't worth the risk of trying to win it if it meant some stone had stayed unturned on our quest for the Webb Ellis. If team performances in every game throughout the year were the criterion in which the coach of the year was judged, then no Hansen wouldn't come close, and you only have to look at the Namibia game where the all Blacks simply used the Namibians for scrum practice for an example of sacrificing the pursuit of perfection in every game for the good of the ultimate goal.

Agree, the world cup is the pinnacle of rugby, coaching a team to win the best prize in rugby surely has to be the pinnacle.

Ask any coach what trophy they want to win the most and it would be the world cup. Well maybe in Cheikas case he would take any trophy

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

Agree, the world cup is the pinnacle of rugby, coaching a team to win the best prize in rugby surely has to be the pinnacle.

Ask any coach what trophy they want to win the most and it would be the world cup. Well maybe in Cheikas case he would take any trophy

I asked my coach and he says he wants to win the Northern Division- Durham & Northumberland 3, doesn't seem to care about the World Cup.

 

[smartcooky]

Great news for AB fans, Barrett's signed on in NZ until 2019. Now that he is I can see Hansen putting him back on the bench, but hopefully not, and there may be a clause in Barrett's contract preventing it.

All Black contracts do not come with selection guarantees of any kind. Tew made that very clear when some members of the NZ media implied that SBW had selection guarantees.

 

[smartcooky]

Wow... You went and even pulled the dictionary definition of disparaging out...

Yeah I did, because I am old fart who doesn't like to see the language murdered by ignorance.... the right word for the right situation

Look mate, if you're a personal friend of Hansen or something I get you might be affronted by my comments

I'm not a friend of Hansen's, never met the guy, I just believe in human decency and giving credit where its due.

Hansen was heavily criticized when he was appointed as All Blacks coach. Many people predicted his demise, panned his management style, complained about the way he interviewed, and pretty much tried to undermine him. Now that he has taken the All Blacks to an ever greater level than Henry did, people won't give him the credit for what he's done, and simply dismiss his as having inherited a great team... is a classic case of Catch-22.

What you, and others, either fail to understand, or refuse to accept, is that Hansen didn't actually inherit an already great team from another coach's hard work, because for seven years beforehand, he was a key part of the coaching group that made the team great in the first place!!

 

[ncurd]

On the Hansen for coach of the year debate. I know many people cite the RC loss as something required to win RWC. But it's also why he lost coach of the year he 'failed'(I use the term loosely as he was hardly a failure last year) to meet maximum expectations of his teams potential.

Cheika won said RC when nobody would of given him a chance and got to the Final of the RWC after impressively negotiating the group of death comfortably.


Look at it this year we could end up with the top 2 teams undefeated (let's be clear it's early days yet with tons of hurdles). Who performed better? NZ on the back of a RWC win just carrying on like they always have done? Or England who just got unceremoniously dumped out of their own world cup, were in disarray and just had a new coach.


The reality is because NZ are so good they are held to higher standards than everyone else not meeting those standards is considered not good enough. Many year ago under Alex Furgerson Man Utd. had their first season in donkeys years where they failed to win any silverware he was considered a failure despite coming second in many competitions just because of the standards set previously.


So yeah it might be unfair but Hansen needed to win both competitionsides last year to win Coach of the Year reality is what's more important in his book? Coach of the year or that the RWC. Same as he sacrificed the RC (although I'm not convinced it was deliberate ploy by any stretch) for RWC.

Jones on the other hand managed to coach a side to beat a top 3 Tier 1 nation from a side ranked below 10thas in the world. That on rugby is a monumental accomplishment. And beyond what was expected of Japan.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Well this thread is spiralling as usual...

I have 2 Questions:

1. @smartcooky - How are the citing commisioner's appointed? It seems to me like the citing commissioner is always someone from the home nation hosting the match. In SA it's usually Jannie Lubbe. So if the match was in New Zealand, then the citing commissioner was a New Zealander?

2. @RoosTah - Why bash on Hansen? He's a brilliant coach, and is respected by many. I know he's well respected in SA, especially by our former national coach Heyneke Meyer. You say he inherited a team, but Every National Coach inherits a team. That teams was there before he becomes coach, and they will be there afterwards. Each coach has players that makes their debut under their tenure, and the next coach will inherit him.

I don't get this animosity towards Hansen at all. He's bloody brilliant.

 

[RoosTah]

Yeah I did, because I am old fart who doesn't like to see the language murdered by ignorance.... the right word for the right situation



I'm not a friend of Hansen's, never met the guy, I just believe in human decency and giving credit where its due.

Hansen was heavily criticized when he was appointed as All Blacks coach. Many people predicted his demise, panned his management style, complained about the way he interviewed, and pretty much tried to undermine him. Now that he has taken the All Blacks to an ever greater level than Henry did, people won't give him the credit for what he's done, and simply dismiss his as having inherited a great team... is a classic case of Catch-22.

What you, and others, either fail to understand, or refuse to accept, is that Hansen didn't actually inherit an already great team from another coach's hard work, because for seven years beforehand, he was a key part of the coaching group that made the team great in the first place!!

But he did mate, and that's just a fact. Sure, he was part of the set up under Henry, but Henry was still running the show. Again, he's obviously no mug, but why you have such a hard time appreciating why some of us are more impressed with Eddie Jones taking Japan to a record WC winning run that included victory over the Springboks is obviously down to a fundamental disagreement over what we think makes a great coach.

I get that you think we're not giving Hansen his due, but I don't think at any stage you've made an attempt to understand why people here think that coaching the world's best team supported by the world's most well established rugby player development system in the only country on the planet of any scale where all the top talent goes into Rugby might make that task quite a bit easier than a guy coaching a team where some of the players are still part timers, the sport of rugby is well down the list of big sports and all the clubs are recalcitrant at releasing their stars.

That doesn't make Henry a mug, it just means his job - for all the public pressure it entails - is a lot easier to do than any number of others around the world, including arguably England.

Now, if in a few years time Hansen decides to go coach say Argentina and he takes them to a couple RC ***les and they knock out a grand-slam, then I'll be the first to call him a genius but not whilst he's coaching the NBA All Stars of rugby, because as I've said COUNTLESS times now (and each time you've failed to acknowledge), there are a myriad of examples of coaches who have looked like absolute masters when they've coached star-studded sides, but who have gone onto to prove great disappointments when they're operating in less fertile grounds.

- - - Updated - - -

2. @RoosTah - Why bash on Hansen? He's a brilliant coach, and is respected by many. I know he's well respected in SA, especially by our former national coach Heyneke Meyer. You say he inherited a team, but Every National Coach inherits a team. That teams was there before he becomes coach, and they will be there afterwards. Each coach has players that makes their debut under their tenure, and the next coach will inherit him.

I don't get this animosity towards Hansen at all. He's bloody brilliant.

If my comments really constitute "bashing" then the world has gone soft.

Tell me where have I "bashed" him exactly?

No, it just looks that way because a few kiwis here find it incomprehensible that I think what Eddie Jones achieved with Japan last year is a more impressive feat than coaching the reigning world champs and most dominant rugby country of the last 100 years to further success.

If you think that's "bashing" then I'm guess you played in the backs ;-)

 

[TRF_heineken]

But he did mate, and that's just a fact. Sure, he was part of the set up under Henry, but Henry was still running the show. Again, he's obviously no mug, but why you have such a hard time appreciating why some of us are more impressed with Eddie Jones taking Japan to a record WC winning run that included victory over the Springboks is obviously down to a fundamental disagreement over what we think makes a great coach.

I get that you think we're not giving Hansen his due, but I don't think at any stage you've made an attempt to understand why people here think that coaching the world's best team supported by the world's most well established rugby player development system in the only country on the planet of any scale where all the top talent goes into Rugby might make that task quite a bit easier than a guy coaching a team where some of the players are still part timers, the sport of rugby is well down the list of big sports and all the clubs are recalcitrant at releasing their stars.

That doesn't make Henry a mug, it just means his job - for all the public pressure it entails - is a lot easier to do than any number of others around the world, including arguably England.

Now, if in a few years time Hansen decides to go coach say Argentina and he takes them to a couple RC ***les and they knock out a grand-slam, then I'll be the first to call him a genius but not whilst he's coaching the NBA All Stars of rugby, because as I've said COUNTLESS times now (and each time you've failed to acknowledge), there are a myriad of examples of coaches who have looked like absolute masters when they've coached star-studded sides, but who have gone onto to prove great disappointments when they're operating in less fertile grounds.

- - - Updated - - -


If my comments really constitute "bashing" then the world has gone soft.

Tell me where have I "bashed" him exactly?

No, it just looks that way because a few kiwis here find it incomprehensible that I think what Eddie Jones achieved with Japan last year is a more impressive feat than coaching the reigning world champs and most dominant rugby country of the last 100 years to further success.

If you think that's "bashing" then I'm guess you played in the backs ;-)

So basically you are saying that Eddie Jones is the Worlds best coach and Hansen is nothing but a gap-filler with a team set on autopilot??

 

[RoosTah]

So basically you are saying that Eddie Jones is the Worlds best coach and Hansen is nothing but a gap-filler with a team set on autopilot??

Are you familiar with how statistical analyses work? Do you understand, for instance, the difference between correlation and causation and how you measure the two? Well, you look at sample sizes and try to control for variables.

So, in answer to your question, yes, based on Eddie's record of the past couple years, I'd be tempted to say he is the most worthy of the ***le "best coach in the world."

No, I don't agree with your straw-man notion that anyone who doesn't cower to the alter of Hansen must think he's "nothing but a gap-filler with a team on auto-pilot" but I do think that if you approach this rationally and not like some easily offended school girl then it's hard to get a clear read on Hansen because it's a sample size of 1, so it's hard to know just how much of the ABs success is down to him versus the infrastructure of NZ Rugby.

For Eddie Jones though, over the past two years success has followed him. Do understand why that's different and makes for a more compelling case when talking about a person's skills? If a CEO takes over a booming company and it continues booming, that's great, but obviously the structures were in place to help that CEO because there was a strong precedent for success. However, until he goes to another, less fortunate company to try his hand you don't really know how much of the success he truly owned, do you?

But, if you have a CEO that goes from company to company dragging them out of the dirt and into success, people take note and most would agree it's the more impressive feat. Why? Because the common denominator in the success IS the CEO - not the company.

Is any of this getting clearer to any of you?

 

[Sker]

Roostah makes a pretty compelling argument there

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

Roostah makes a pretty compelling argument there

Agreed.

What people seem to be almost deliberately misunderstanding is that saying this is not the same as insulting Hansen.

He's clearly a spectacular coach, who's achieved great success and done a by no means easy job to near perfection. Hansen is in no way denigrated by the opinion that his achievements of the last year are less impressive than Eddie Jones or Michael Cheika's. No-one is bashing Steve Hansen.

It's a peculiar quirk of the mindset that takes not being considered number one to be a mortal insult- an interesting side effect of NZ's dominance maybe?

 

[TRF_heineken]

Are you familiar with how statistical analyses work? Do you understand, for instance, the difference between correlation and causation and how you measure the two? Well, you look at sample sizes and try to control for variables.

So, in answer to your question, yes, based on Eddie's record of the past couple years, I'd be tempted to say he is the most worthy of the ***le "best coach in the world."

No, I don't agree with your straw-man notion that anyone who doesn't cower to the alter of Hansen must think he's "nothing but a gap-filler with a team on auto-pilot" but I do think that if you approach this rationally and not like some easily offended school girl then it's hard to get a clear read on Hansen because it's a sample size of 1, so it's hard to know just how much of the ABs success is down to him versus the infrastructure of NZ Rugby.

For Eddie Jones though, over the past two years success has followed him. Do understand why that's different and makes for a more compelling case when talking about a person's skills? If a CEO takes over a booming company and it continues booming, that's great, but obviously the structures were in place to help that CEO because there was a strong precedent for success. However, until he goes to another, less fortunate company to try his hand you don't really know how much of the success he truly owned, do you?

But, if you have a CEO that goes from company to company dragging them out of the dirt and into success, people take note and most would agree it's the more impressive feat. Why? Because the common denominator in the success IS the CEO - not the company.

Is any of this getting clearer to any of you?

No need to get personal here. And no need to insult my intelligence either.

I don't see Eddie Jones as the world's best coach. I never have. Sure he has had success, but at every job he has ever been in the international arena, he has had problems with colleagues/administrators/players etc. He has a brash personality, and isn't always looking at the welfare of his players or the aura of the team. Which is not something I can say about Hansen.

If you want to point to stats, well then there is only one international coach who will crack the nod in regard to success. And that is Kitch Christie, who coached the 1995 World Cup Winning Springboks and had a 100% Success record. Something not even Jones, Hansen, Henry, White, Woodward or anyone else can claim.

Eddie Jones lacks a lot of skills as you say. One of them are people skills, and the other is confrontation skills. Both of those skills are something that Hansen however has.

And I'm not kneeling in front of the altar of Hansen. I just made a remark that he is respected and well-liked, something not a lot of people can say about Eddie. Especially after it's made perfectly clear that he's just after money, and whoever pays the most will get his services...

But that's okay, he's rugby's mercenary coach. And you are his fanboy. All good!

 

[RoosTah]

Agreed.

What people seem to be almost deliberately misunderstanding is that saying this is not the same as insulting Hansen.

He's clearly a spectacular coach, who's achieved great success and done a by no means easy job to near perfection. Hansen is in no way denigrated by the opinion that his achievements of the last year are less impressive than Eddie Jones or Michael Cheika's. No-one is bashing Steve Hansen.

It's a peculiar quirk of the mindset that takes not being considered number one to be a mortal insult- an interesting side effect of NZ's dominance maybe?

Not only that, but so sensitive and reductive have some become that refusing to call Hansen the greatest coach in the world is an unforgivable attempt to "disparage" the man and if you disagree with that statement you're even "murdering" the English language.

It's really quite bizarre just how sensitive and frankly irrational even some of the more generally reasonable kiwis here have become over this quite fair and reasonable assessment.