By: rugger.dawg
29/11/2007
12:35 pm Yahoo! Profile:
rugger.dawg Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Hi nicolte,
I'm not sure all tri-nations and Bledisloe games should be counted as knockout games since losing one (or even two with tri-nations) can still see you win the cups. I'd say only the games which losing will give a team no chance of winning the cup could be called knockout games. In which case (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that would include the 40-26 loss to SA in 2004, the 34-24 win against Australia in 2005, and the 26-12 win against Australia in 2007 giving Henry 2/4. |
|
By: nicolte
29/11/2007
12:06 pm Yahoo! Profile:
nicolte Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
rugger.dawg agree they are both good coaches, I prefer Henry but if Deans does get the job i won't go comitting Hari Kari just yet. I will pull you up on your stats though as I feel the way you have presented them is a bit misleading. Tri Nations and Bledisloe cup games are in effect knockout games, you lose them, you don't get the cups. So off the top my head(wont be completely accurate I am going by memory) I think those stats look a little more like this.
Deans 5/7 (71%)
Henry 14/21 (66%)
This is also counting the RWC loss, and excludes the Lions tour. Looks a little better eh? Now if you cross reference those figures with
Henry 42/48 (88%)
Deans 38/53 (72%)
Then things start looking better for Henry all of a sudden. |
|
By: rugger.dawg
29/11/2007
11:49 am Yahoo! Profile:
rugger.dawg Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I'm afraid not.
In the first instance I wasn't comparing records. Just saying that Deans' record since 2003 was impressive - and I'm feeling like a broken record for saying it again.
And secondly if you do want to compare records let's look at the coaches records in the last four years.
In all games Henry has the lead:
Henry 42/48 (88%)
Deans 38/53 (72%)
But in knockout rugby Deans has an edge:
Deans 5/7 (71%)
Henry 0/1 (0%)
But as I said in my earlier post both coaches have excellect records so let's not split hairs.
IMO Henry should go because his strategies saw us playing at our worst for the tournament the strategies were there to improve our chances of winning.
Of the remaining candidates Deans has the best record. Hence my support of him. Had Gatland not been treated by the NZRU so poorly and been around to throw his hat in the ring it wouldn't have been so black and white. |
|
By: putionz
29/11/2007
10:56 am Yahoo! Profile:
putionz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Rugger what's moronic about comaparing outcomes? You're the one that put that in first instance so it's a little rich that you're incensed. Essentially you want Deans in there with a 50% achievement (in super in four years) not withstanding his already failed effort with the national side. You're talking about a yearly turnaround which is far easier to get a handle on as opposed to this RWC. The outcomes for New Zealand show that four years is not enough and given the outcomes for Deans in Super 50% is not a shining light it's actually what you would expect when any team goes into a game. If he won three of those four years I reckon you would have a case but the reality is Henry had a win rate in the 80 percent area but lost one game and if you were "moronic" like me you would have considered this: NZ won 80%(+) of their games and then fail at world cup.
Deans could have won every game except the final in each of those years and that would have been a failure. Are you getting where I'm coming from now? |
|
By: rugger.dawg
29/11/2007
10:16 am Yahoo! Profile:
rugger.dawg Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
putionz: Now that works out to 50% hardly a sure thing when you consider that Henrys' succees is 30% higher with the ABs
Hang on - comparing the Crusaders winning 50% of the FINALS in the last four years to the ABs winning 80% of the matches they've played is one of the most moronic things I've read. All I was doing was saying since 2003 Deans has had excellent resluts in the Super 14. Also I never said that the QF exit this year was a valid reason for ditching Henry - if we'd been playing well I wouldn't have a problem with retaining Henry but the fact is that we'd been playing well below par all through the WC because of the strategies Henry employed. Don't see any contradiction there. |
|
By: putionz
29/11/2007
9:07 am Yahoo! Profile:
putionz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Phil it seems that your calculations are in my opinion irrelevant. For me it comes down to this. 4 years is not enough for any coach in New Zealand Coaching an All Black Team. The proof is in OUR averages which to me is more important than what you've put really to support your shonky argument.
Now you are citing age? Now that is not only ageist it is dumb! Has it occurred to you that Deans could just as easily get run over by a bus tomorrow? This fatalistic opinion really isn't iodeal and in terms of bias I think you have outdone yourself without the assisatnce of anyone else on this thread pal in showing that you are indeed biased. Nothing really wrong with that aport from trying to formalise your end with an argument that really strengthens Henry's cause. Weird. |
|
By: phil_777h
28/11/2007
6:54 pm Yahoo! Profile:
phil_777h Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Dach, I'm not a red and black supporter, actually a black and gold supporter, but mainly an AB's supporter, so I have no real traditional elegance to Henry or Deans, but I just think for the sake of NZ rugby Deans is the better bet, I have no bias at all.
It's not just losing one game, I have quite a few problems with things Henry has done this year and could list them but it will be quite a long list, but the main thing I have against him is he is 61 and if he went on to coach in 2011 he will be 65, pensioner age
I don't think he will go till 2011 if he gets it, but for 2 years like he has publicity said only about a week ago, then try to hand over to Hansen.
So all he will do is rob the next coach of the 2 years he could have building up to the cup. If Hansen is good enough he should win it now, no underhand hand overs halfway through.
While I don't buy the argument you need to lose a world cup to win one, I think giving a coach the full 4 years is good policy.
If Henry doesn't want to hang around till 2011 as far as I'm concerned on your bike.
Deans deserves a go, he's done anything and more than Henry had before he got given his shot at it. |
|
By: phil_777h
28/11/2007
6:37 pm Yahoo! Profile:
phil_777h Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I was referring to the time for the run up to the cups they won (that's why I put WC next to them) so that should have been the 1991 cup not 1998 as I put, my typo. But referring to what you asked about if any of them had coached another one after winning the cup, yeah looking at it Dywer did actually coach the 95 cup as for the aussies too, after winning in 91.
But that doesn't change what I was saying because he didn't win in 95, if anything that strengthens my argument more, it proves the extra 4 years he had after 91 didn't help him at all for the 95 cup. |
|
By: wehekasna
28/11/2007
3:06 pm Yahoo! Profile:
wehekasna Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Bob Dwyer, one of the GREAT coachs, Aussie coach winning RWC 1991 quote " Robbie Deans the best coach at any level in the world today". Would Bob know what he was talking about?? Did he also coach Aussie in 82,83?? |
|
By: dachiropractor17
28/11/2007
3:05 pm Yahoo! Profile:
dachiropractor17 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
dr phil and the red and black army.....
dwyer lost many games before winning the world cup in 1991
rod macqueen lost to an amatuer argentina side in 1997...dont know what i'll do if that happened to the all blacks!!and went on to win the 1999 tourny
woodward ...ok that guy lost a tonne of games before he won the wworld cup in 2003
even jake white lost heaps of games before he took out the world cup this year......
point is - in order to win the world cup - does that mean we as the nz public would have to accept heavy defeats and endure a tonne of losses in favour of winning that world cup??? i dont think soooo.....
henrys boys stuffed up in that q/final - with the help of the ref- but just that once and all of a sudden henry has to go!!! yeah right...
if deans gets the job - i reckon rocokoco should go play for fiji cos i reckon caleb ralph will make a comeback!! hahahahahahaha yeeeeeeees sirrrrrrr!!! |
|
By: putionz
28/11/2007
2:28 pm Yahoo! Profile:
putionz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Here's the stats,
Brian Lochore, New Zealand 1985 - 1987 WC 2yrs
Bob Dywer, Australia 1988 - 1999 WC 3yrs
Kitch Christie, South Africa 1994 - 1995 WC 1yrs
Rob MacQueen, Australia 1998 - 1999 WC 2yrs
Clive Woodward, England 1997 - 2003 WC 6yrs
Jake white, South Africa 2004 -2007 WC 3yrs
World cup competition held in 87/91/95/99/03/07 according to your numbers there seem to be two tournaments that fall into Dwyers tenure and a few other discrepancies with numbers eg Macqueen. Any feedback on those phil? |
|
By: phil_777h
28/11/2007
2:06 pm Yahoo! Profile:
phil_777h Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Woodward is the only 1 out of the six to lose 1 first then go on to win another.
I pretty sure none of those winning coaches have gone on to coach another world cup since winning. So just Woodward. |
|
By: putionz
28/11/2007
1:41 pm Yahoo! Profile:
putionz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| phil...okay Brainiac I'm going to knock this on the head take your list and tell me how many of your winning coaches have held charge for more than one cup tournament. Get back to me with that then I will tell you why there's a big hole in you argument (which i thought was quit clear...perhaps you don't read either). bummed if whta you've said is ture about Henry |
|
By: phil_777h
28/11/2007
12:59 pm Yahoo! Profile:
phil_777h Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Not sure you went to school but it doesn’t average out at four years.
OK I’ll go through it for you 2+3+1+2+6+3=17, now to get the average divide it by six, which equals 2.83, that is the average, not 4.
Anyway Henry only wants to coach for 2 more years anyway, so all he’s going to do if he gets it, is make it so the next coach will only get 2 years. So if you think more than 4 years is needed you better hope Henry doesn’t get it. |
|
By: putionz
28/11/2007
12:44 pm Yahoo! Profile:
putionz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| That's an almighty statement to make: 4 years eh? Well in light of having the best team in the world every coach has failed since 87 (and we are talking about New Zealand and the ABs). So your little stats (i see you haven't bothered bringing your exact data following my putting the average at 4 years)seem to have proven little unless of course you're Australian or South African and then I'm sure the math would make some sense. There is something wrong in our country. If anything your argument has just rammed home that New Zealand will never win the world cup in 4 years. Now get on with your stats and say some prayers for Deans because that's where you math shoot you in the foot. The thread was about changing our thinking and sorting out something that has been wrong for twenty years. You have conveniently put your argument to give wieght to your support to Deans and frankly it just confirms for me perosnally that Henry should be retained because like England we have only won the cup once and by God 87 was so much bloody easier thatn it is moving forward as the game grows. You did the math and perhaps you're not taking it on board. 4 years (In New Zealand) is not enough. Whta's that? speak liouder I can't hear you..thought so. |
|
By: phil_777h
28/11/2007
12:27 pm Yahoo! Profile:
phil_777h Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Sorry putionz don’t you read properly either, or can’t you comprehend properly, what I was talking about was the time coaches had coaching their teams BEFORE they won the world cups, NOT their total time coaching a team.
Out of the 6 world cup winning coaches so far, Woodward is the only one that coached his team for more than 4 years before the cup was won, What’s so hard to understand about that?
This proves 4 years is easily enough, if Henry can’t win after 4 years he will never win. |
|
By: putionz
28/11/2007
12:25 pm Yahoo! Profile:
putionz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
In the four years since his own WC disappointment the Crusaders under Deans have made it to the semifinals every year, been beaten in one final and won the competition twice.
Now that works out to 50% hardly a sure thing when you consider that Henrys' succees is 30% higher with the ABs
and they failed at the world cup which if you consider your info still works out as nothing. Semis or finals loss do not count and bleat all you want a win is what people want eg. The cup in hand. So talking about how far you went in the tourney is really just a waste of time becaue those pushing for Henry to go use this as a huge part of their argument our worst result. Heck was the last world cup any better? As far as I know they didn't get the cup.
So spare me rugger and don't contradict yoursefl when you are effectively splitting hairs |
|
By: putionz
28/11/2007
12:15 pm Yahoo! Profile:
putionz Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Phil didn;t I tewll you your samples were flawed and now look what's happened the board has come along and whacked a bloody great fact on your argument. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story...hmmm. Look you and Rugger love Deans and for whatever reasons want to see him take over and I personally want Henry retained. We've had all sorts of moaning about money etc so I'm thinking even more reason to keep the status quo as we would like to see something built on four years of work as opposed to starting form scracth because at the end of the day byou can throw your averages for tom dick and harry in here to get the likes of Deans and the rest of Canterbury excited but the truth is even Deans recognises: "That is a progressive thing, you learn from having experience."
Now what I'm expecting is Deans will say this is true for him but not Henry and co. Deans despite his record(irrelevant as it applies to this) means rebuilding. I say stick with Henry and build on what we've got and what we've already paid for. |
|
By: nicolte
28/11/2007
9:31 am Yahoo! Profile:
nicolte Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I think the most important question really is
Do the players have confidence in Graham Henry?
I do not suggest they do not, I just ask the question.
As a player you put your belief in a coach, what happens when this belief is crushed as it was at the RWC?
It is a shame that more AB's have not either spoken out for or against Henry. Keven Mealamu has said he thinks it would not be a good idea to have a change in coaching staff for NZ rugby, but apart from him I can't think of any other players who have really expressed how they feel one way or the other. Do the players place the blame on Henry? Was it his game plan that was at fault? Was his rotation / reconditioning policy the downfall of the AB's through their own eyes?, or have players taken the responsibility of failure upon themselves and excluded Henry from the equation?
Has anyone seen any other interviews with players where this subject might have been raised? |
|
By: krishnahaerewa
28/11/2007
8:59 am Yahoo! Profile:
krishnahaerewa Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I would like to see Deans go to Aussie may he can strenghten Aussie rugby a bit more but he needs to get away from canturbury and let some one else take over as they didn't do a good job this season. As for G Henry we need to give him more time to gel with the all blacks maybe we have to get rid of the old bring in new fresh ab people that are going to use there brains when we need it like Johnny Wilkinson if the droppys are there and if people are going to give penaltys take the points. I think that G Henry needs time the selectors need to have a good look at new zealand rugby and start picking a real team to build on before 2011 Have a look beyond the square no tunnel vision. |
|
By: phil_777h
28/11/2007
7:04 am Yahoo! Profile:
phil_777h Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Gvts, I fully agree the ref was terrible, but the AB's didn't take their chances and didn’t play well, the back line couldn’t be tusted to even catch the ball. We didn’t play well in the WC games before that, and if we had managed to scrape a win against the French theres no way we would have won the cup if we had continued playing like that.
Henry made so many mistakes in selection and strategy for him to sit back and say I never put a foot wrong is a joke. If you can’t win it in four years you never will. |
|
By: gvtstkwi07
28/11/2007
5:08 am Yahoo! Profile:
gvtstkwi07 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
hey phill Deans what part of our failure in 2003 mate ,mitchell and deans trans formed our ALL Blacks into slack blacks and thank god for Henry coming in and transforming our Team into the most leathal force for the past 4yrs.HENRY DIDNT LOSE THAT QUARTER FINAL the 15 players on the field did and some very dodgy calls or didnt you watch that game phill.
Deans was part of that 2003 coaching campain or didnt you know that farrrrrrout you people have short bloody memories and S.A winning the Cup that was due to Eddie Jones not Fake white! |
|
By: phil_777h
27/11/2007
7:21 pm Yahoo! Profile:
phil_777h Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Dach, You missed the point, I said years coaching up to the cup not including after it, it's the time up to it that it relevant to the argument that 4 years should be enough, as Woodward is the only one out of six with more than 4 years coaching the team before his cup win.
Deans was also manager of the Crusaders when Smith got his wins, and at the time coaching canterbury NPC, a pretty similar team, which under him got it's first NPC win in 14 years, in his first year. |
|
By: dachiropractor17
27/11/2007
6:24 pm Yahoo! Profile:
dachiropractor17 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
by the way dr phil..
bob dwyer coached from 1988 to 1995
rod macqueen coached from end of 1997 to 2001(yes one world cup yes) but lost to argentina in 1997 in his 2nd test in charge.
when henry left in 1998...up to that point henry had won 4 npc titles...and 2 super titles..
deans had only won 1 npc title..and only shone when smith left the crusaders to him when he had lead them to 2 super 12 titles....
yeah i know more like deans inherited that crusader team rather than building it from scratch
point is u say deans has a better record?? not when henry was coaching here im afraid!!! |
|
By: dachiropractor17
27/11/2007
6:14 pm Yahoo! Profile:
dachiropractor17 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
henry didnt make a mess of that lions tour - the players were all sooks cos they claimed to be over trained or werent picked. look who took them in 2005(sir clive homo) and look what happened - whitewashed by henrys men
as for wales...bloody hell they won 10 straight under henry including wins over france, england and the springboks!!! bloody hell when results didnt come there way they turned on henry - but realistically they were crap to begin with!!!they were just ungrateful bastards who received but never gave. look what happened to them in this years world cup - didnt even make it to the quarters!!!wow who coached them??? a welshman...and where do they look to for a new coach???bloody nz!!!
drPHIL gives us stats bout coaching tenures of world cup teams...but remember those teams that won endured hidings and lost a bundle or games...and u dont want be to post it up
hey at least henry didnt lose to england in the last four years!! something deans has experienced twice in the all black envirnment!! |
|
