Discussion in 'Rugby World Cup 2015' started by Superalexmarket, Oct 29, 2015.
I'm the #1 All Black supporters, Nigel is the #16 All Black player.
Cheika did a great job, but he didn't win the WC and time the teams performances to peak at the right time, he was close. Hansen did.
Next year if he can do it again and win the RC and maybe the Bledisloe cup then by all means give the him coach of the year as he will have earned it, then no one will have anything to talk about because he has proven himself. Surely you would have to admit that is a better outcome than this year? getting back the Bledisloe after 10 years.
Like I said, he did a good job but in a year when Hansens winning % between the 2 was better and Hansen won the world cup it seem obvious who the choice should.
I'm not actually isolating Hansen's career to a two year period, I'm simply looking for examples at the higher levels of him succeeding outside the layered and well developed All Black machine, and for him it's just Wales and the NPC. For Cheika he's coached two European sides, a Super Rugby team and now a national team at the elite level and succeeded in most.
The All Blacks of the last 4 years is the most successful international rugby team in history - more successful even than the Henry era. In fact, this side would have to be a candidate for one of the most successful sporting teams in the entire history of team sports. And this year was the year when that mega-success reached its apex and the World Cup was won. And Steve Hansen was the coach of this side, the head of the organisation that achieved this unparalleled success.
That's what you're up against. Cheika is a great coach and has had a very good year, and I have no desire to downplay his and Australia's accomplishments. But in my mind there is no comparison.
To answer the question you asked - would the All Blacks have won the RWC without Hansen? Possibly. If you're saying any monkey with a clipboard could have won the cup coaching this side then no, I don't agree with that at all. Beyond that it's all speculation.
No, it does not. It's quite a naive and flawed argument.
You give me the ABs squad and give Hansen my local team's squad. Both teams play against each other. Who do you think would come on top?
Using your logic that would make me a better coach than Hansen.
And yes, i do believe the ABs team, player by player is ahead of Australia's.
You need to judge a coach not only on his stats but on the resources he has to play with.
I have a question. How important was the Rugby Championship this year? Just as important as any other year? What about the Bledisloe?
Certainly not stating "any monkey with a clip board," but what trophy did they win under Hansen that they didn't under Henry?
Hansen is clearly a good coach, but if even Kiwis think the All Blacks could have won the RWC without him at the helm, then is he really a critical factor in the ABs success? I think that would suggest he is not.
Turning that around, I'm very skeptical of whether the Wallabies could have got to the RWC final without the changes Cheika implemented and his guidance of the team.
I have to agree, Hanson worked with more or less the same set of players who were the best in the world and they remained the best in the world. Cheika took on a struggling Australia side and implemented his own changes and coaching which enabled them to get to a World Cup final in a year. I think most neutrals would be in no doubt as to who had more of a coaching impact. I think there is a failure on this forum in general at the moment to recognise anyone's achievement's past the All blacks. And while they are champions that is fair enough in some instances but people need to give credit where credit is due I think.
Cheika just got an Australian, an Argentinian and two South Africans (myself included) to agree on something... Surely that also deserves some form of an award.
Considerably less important. Mini RC don't exist? Bledisloe just as important.
- - - Updated - - -
Considerably less important. Mini RC don't exist? Bledisloe just as important.
Henry 2004-2011. RC 5/8, Bledisloe 8/8, World Cup 1/2. Tests P/W/L = 103/88/15 (85.4% won, 14.6% lost).
Hansen 2012-2015. RC 3/4. Bledisloe 4/4. World Cup 1/1. Tests P/W/L = 54/49/2 (90.7% won, 5.6% lost).
I hear your point that the All Black "machine" is more than any cog, and you are right. That machine has been built and added to and tweaked for decades. That hasn't always meant World Cup success though, has it? And if Hansen is only a cog in the machine then wasn't Henry also only a cog in the machine? Wasn't Hansen also a cog in the machine when Henry was there? You seem to be giving Henry more credit than Hansen for some reason and I don't see why, because the machine under Hansen has gotten better. The current All Black machine, with Hansen being the central cog, is in the best condition it has ever been in. The question that should be asked by other countries is, why don't they have comparable machines? Why are they so reliant on special individuals to come in and drag their bucket of rusty bolts forward?
You speak of flawed arguments and then draw a comparison of your local club team and the Australian team lol.
Fair enough point about the players and resources.
So how about since Hansen is the most successful NZ coach ever (judging by win percentage) then I'll rate Cheika his equal when he is Australia's most successful coach ever (judging by win percentage).
That should balance out the resources they're playing with.
You've got to remember Cheika has lost more test matches in 1 year than Hansen has in 4 and I'm sure none of us believe that the Abs are 4 times as good as Aussie.
I'd suggest that the teams are a lot closer than that.
- - - Updated - - -
Bro not saying Cheika isn't a good coach but why do you forget his stint in France?
Also I agree that Hansen didn't do flash with Wales.
However I believe that coaches can learn and get better over time.
It's an frequently used principle/tool in both mathematics and logic. You take "the argument" to the extreme to see if the point still stands. If it doesn't, then the argument is flawed (very simplified, but still. It is used for illustration purposes mainly).
NZ's squad is better than Australia's yet you claimed that Hansen was better. I just took the exact same principle and took it to the limit.
I don't see a problem with that. It is factually indisputable. So, agreed!
Fair point regarding Henry, but I did qualify that in an earlier post in that it was under him that the ABs returned to their more mythic status after the more inconsistent and unsuccessful Smith and Mitchell stints, where under Mitchell in particular much was made about the team having a poor culture punctuated by excessive alcohol fed "bonding."
Henry came in and actively changed that culture and made the All Blacks a much more complete and successful team in the process. Sure the 2007 WC campaign was a failure, but it was knife edge stuff and the injury to Carter was pretty critical there.
So from the standpoint of managing variables, Henry's impact on the All Blacks appear readily apparent and goes beyond simply tactics and selection. That's kind of why I give Henry more credit - the current set up of the All Blacks is still very much the house that Henry built and Hansen hasn't changed anything fundamental about the overall coaching set up or the structures in place around collaboration with the regions etc.
Looking at the Wallabies now, I see some parallels with Henry in how Cheika is changing the entire architecture around the national side from the inside out. He's changed everything, getting existing super rugby coaches all much more involved with the Wallabies, soothing old rivalries and bringing in key tacticians like Larkham, whilst getting the ARU to revamp its self defeating policy of not selecting any foreign players. Then finally, he's changed the team culture itself, getting players to shut up and play with 100% commitment to the team and its philosophy in a way that no other coach has managed.
Weirdly I think if I was to be grumpy with Cheika winning it - it would be over another Ozzy in Eddie Jones.
If we want to argue that Cheika did well in the sense that success is relative to the team you are with: I know for a fact I'd have a harder time at the start of the tournament believing Japan would win 3/4 including against South Africa, than Australia making it to the final. Maybe it's just that I never believed Australia weren't one of the favorites going into the tournament. But if we want to talk about a dramatic improvement: Japan under Jones won the Pacific Championship, and went from a team which only managed a draw in 2011, to wins over South Africa, Samoa and USA.
So surely if we are making an argument on teams success being relative, and a measurable input into development - it is pretty weird to give it to Cheika over Jones.
Agree with all that, and I'd have been very happy to see Jones get it based on what Japan achieved under him.
A couple of things here:
1) congratulations, I hope you have been enjoying a fantastic campaign and title for the all blacks.
2) I didn't say Hansen doesn't deserve the award, quite the opposite. What I said was that I think that others deserve it just as much for what could be seen as greater achievements.
3) let me put this to you: Would you agree that Sustralia were only able to assert any dominance once Smith was in the bin? What if they had gone ahead in that time and managed to cling onto the lead? Would that have made Hansen an empirically worse coach? The fact that Australia won because of a moment of idiocy from an otherwise stellar player. That is the perfect example of why the final didn't matter in terms of recognising who the best coach is, regardless of who you think it should be.
Separate names with a comma.