Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
Rugby World Cup 2023
Question for the Kiwi posters
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="40/20" data-source="post: 978026" data-attributes="member: 81577"><p>No arguments from me on the concept. But there are numerous examples in other sports where a history of sustained success hasn't hindered continued performance, but in fact breeds it. Nadal and Federer could've hung up their racquets years ago, the Storm have been NRL benchmarks for the last decade, likewise the Patriots in the NFL. </p><p></p><p>Yes the public and media have taken the loss almost unusually well and yes, that could be down to previous success breeding a degree of acceptance. However I don't think we should mistake that for even a hint of apathy within the team itself. If results are the only possible indicator, there's any number of other possible reasons for that. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I have a different view on this. My sense is they had a clear plan, but unlike previous cycles, that plan didn't come together in time. Key players being injured or unavailable at key times leading into the campaign all contributed to this IMO. </p><p></p><p>The dual play making option is a good example of this with Barrett only shifting back to 15 this year after McKenzie, who had been groomed for the role last year, did his ACL. </p><p></p><p>Likewise Savea belatedly shifting to 6 this year. His form no doubt demanded his inclusion as a starter anyway, but if Squire had been fit and available, the decision would've centered on whether Savea or Cane starts at 7, as opposed to shifting one of them to the other side. </p><p></p><p>But all of that doesn't suggest a lack of planning. Just decisions (some forced, some not) that didn't work out. It also suggests our much vaunted depth is even lighter than we had started to fear. </p><p></p><p>If anything, I think the long term success has bred an unrealistic expectation among ourselves, as opposed to the team. IMO, Hansen is our greatest ever coach but I don't think us losing some key games necessarily meant he was operating below his peak. Sometimes others are simply better, despite our best efforts.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="40/20, post: 978026, member: 81577"] No arguments from me on the concept. But there are numerous examples in other sports where a history of sustained success hasn't hindered continued performance, but in fact breeds it. Nadal and Federer could've hung up their racquets years ago, the Storm have been NRL benchmarks for the last decade, likewise the Patriots in the NFL. Yes the public and media have taken the loss almost unusually well and yes, that could be down to previous success breeding a degree of acceptance. However I don't think we should mistake that for even a hint of apathy within the team itself. If results are the only possible indicator, there's any number of other possible reasons for that. I have a different view on this. My sense is they had a clear plan, but unlike previous cycles, that plan didn't come together in time. Key players being injured or unavailable at key times leading into the campaign all contributed to this IMO. The dual play making option is a good example of this with Barrett only shifting back to 15 this year after McKenzie, who had been groomed for the role last year, did his ACL. Likewise Savea belatedly shifting to 6 this year. His form no doubt demanded his inclusion as a starter anyway, but if Squire had been fit and available, the decision would've centered on whether Savea or Cane starts at 7, as opposed to shifting one of them to the other side. But all of that doesn't suggest a lack of planning. Just decisions (some forced, some not) that didn't work out. It also suggests our much vaunted depth is even lighter than we had started to fear. If anything, I think the long term success has bred an unrealistic expectation among ourselves, as opposed to the team. IMO, Hansen is our greatest ever coach but I don't think us losing some key games necessarily meant he was operating below his peak. Sometimes others are simply better, despite our best efforts. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
Rugby World Cup 2023
Question for the Kiwi posters
Top