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
Super Rugby
Why do the blues keep on sucking?
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="Umaga&#039;s Witness" data-source="post: 988583" data-attributes="member: 65365"><p>Absolutely they don't adapt, that's the odd thing compared to other New Zealand teams in particular. It feels like the coaches keep trying to stop them taking risks rather than trying to make them more accurate with their risk taking. They've been taking far fewer risks than other New Zealand teams for many years now. Simplifying their game did look like it was starting to work, but they haven't built on it. They haven't gotten better since Umagas fisrts year in charge.</p><p></p><p>I'm not sure about the front tow comment as they have ofa and Karl, had Charlie Faumuina prior to that, and Mealamu. </p><p></p><p>More like they throw any pass at the wrong time. Other teams throw more offloads and more passes in general, they just do so with more skill and at the right time. The blues throw bad passes in desperation but don't take a risk when they should, and are often blatantly tunnel visioned, not taking easy overlap opportunities. </p><p></p><p>I agree sticking with tana was a good move, problem is they've had so many injuries in recent times they haven't been able to build. And, if you aren't winning it's hard to build a culture unless like you say there is something to identify the culture as and there is some promise for building it. Maybe as Heineken says they're trying to hold on to the past. Fact is they don't have the players of the past. If you look at the backs in 2003, including the reserves, they probably had 9 backs who were better decisions makers than the best of the current crop. If they can't rely on c factor players making play out of nowhere, and smart players instinctively knowing how to run support, they need a different culture. It's kinda ironic really that two of the best ever opportunity identifiers and support runners are their coaches. </p><p></p><p>unfortunately I don't know that bb will fix them, as he can be quite tunnel visioned himself, although maybe that will help them define their new culture rather than trying to regain the past. I don't think Marchant was a good choice either. They had a chance to grow a culture of being the enforcer team when Umaga first started with big tacklers and carriers like kaino, Faumuina, etc. would have been good for them to try and build on that. itoje would have helped with that for sure. I don't mind the idea of bringing English locks in, but not English backs.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Umaga's Witness, post: 988583, member: 65365"] Absolutely they don’t adapt, that’s the odd thing compared to other New Zealand teams in particular. It feels like the coaches keep trying to stop them taking risks rather than trying to make them more accurate with their risk taking. They’ve been taking far fewer risks than other New Zealand teams for many years now. Simplifying their game did look like it was starting to work, but they haven’t built on it. They haven’t gotten better since Umagas fisrts year in charge. I’m not sure about the front tow comment as they have ofa and Karl, had Charlie Faumuina prior to that, and Mealamu. More like they throw any pass at the wrong time. Other teams throw more offloads and more passes in general, they just do so with more skill and at the right time. The blues throw bad passes in desperation but don’t take a risk when they should, and are often blatantly tunnel visioned, not taking easy overlap opportunities. I agree sticking with tana was a good move, problem is they’ve had so many injuries in recent times they haven’t been able to build. And, if you aren’t winning it’s hard to build a culture unless like you say there is something to identify the culture as and there is some promise for building it. Maybe as Heineken says they’re trying to hold on to the past. Fact is they don’t have the players of the past. If you look at the backs in 2003, including the reserves, they probably had 9 backs who were better decisions makers than the best of the current crop. If they can’t rely on c factor players making play out of nowhere, and smart players instinctively knowing how to run support, they need a different culture. It’s kinda ironic really that two of the best ever opportunity identifiers and support runners are their coaches. unfortunately I don’t know that bb will fix them, as he can be quite tunnel visioned himself, although maybe that will help them define their new culture rather than trying to regain the past. I don’t think Marchant was a good choice either. They had a chance to grow a culture of being the enforcer team when Umaga first started with big tacklers and carriers like kaino, Faumuina, etc. would have been good for them to try and build on that. itoje would have helped with that for sure. I don’t mind the idea of bringing English locks in, but not English backs. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
Super Rugby
Why do the blues keep on sucking?
Top