ALL BLACKS 2016 the Future

Today Steve Hansen signed a contract to 2017,he hopes the rest of his coaching team will stay with him.
With a 90% win record to date he has done well and hopefully when the core players leave post RWC
he will have a good team to replace them.

The players concerned Mealamu,Woodcock,McCaw,Carter,Nonu and Conrad Smith are out of contract
and may well decide to retire from test Rugby.

Hooker,and Centre[13] may be a problem iniatially plus back up 9`s but most of the rest are covered
Front five and back row has some depth,Matt Todd for McCaw,Cane as super sub etc.Thoughts at least
the debacles of 1991,1998 and 2009 may be avoided.

A new RWC/IRB number1 side will be established,losses incurred until they get up to speed but they
may win the odd game 2016 before retaining there rightful place back at Number 1

Its no ones rightful place its earned.

Hansen spoke last night of the challenge 2016 brings. With so many big names finishing all at once the challenge is to replace them so this and next years superxv has a dual edge to it for Hansen. He's got to be looking at the next 20 or so under the surface so that in itself is an excellent reason to appoint Hansen now instead of waiting for everything to be up in the air. A potentially outgoing coach wouldn't give a stuff about next year, leaving the new coach to have to get up to speed with the exodus of players.

For the players there's also another carrot to retain the trophy. Financially, dual World cup winning players are probably worth more on the rag trade market so there's an additional individual incentive to bring back the trophy, aside from the motto of leaving the jersey in a better place than they found it.

Good to see smart decisions get made these days. I think that's what the Hnery era is more about...smart decision making. Its certainly his thinking for the 2015 side.

Yes 7 and a 1/2 it is and has been virtually by the All Blacks since 2003 except for brief
periods post 2003/9.The Rwc winner will earn that right then have to defend it as the
AB`s have IF they can.

To date only" the arch chokers"1987-90,and 2011-14 have done that I`m an AB supporter
but am not.ARROGANT enough to assume they can win the RWC and retain there status
thru 2016 but they just MIGHT.

Precisely why it is so important to have a set up in place instead of the usual win RWC or else.

Thats better. If they do it good for them but I can see top spot up for grabs in the near future.

Not sure how many ALL Blacks will retire after the RWC. but their will be some big BOOT to fill that's for sure.

Mcaw will defo go IMO, But what about Kireren Reed? will he be going or staying?
Either way 2 of the biggest work horses in the game. Who is there with their talent to come in and take over?

When England won the rugby world cup in 2003 this is the kind of thing that Sir Clive wanted to do with England, but the old farts as they was known as did not want to know.

New Zealand may be down after the RWC but they will certainly not be out. They will bounce back, because the New Zealand public will not stand for it......The convayer belt will keep on rolling out the No 1 Player for the No 1 TEAM.

Read will stay on, he's pretty much assured of being the next captain I think

I was sure the ABs would dip after the last RWC but incredibly they've become even more dominant under Hansen.

It will take an amazing effort to continue to stay on top after this one, given the personel they will lose - and with the salaries on offer in Europe it will make life even more difficult to retain top players from here in than it already is.

They'll still be a top side but to maintain the current dominance will be a massive challenge.

Yes, it's the end of an era for them and they need to start consistently selecting younger players who will be their future. An enviable task given the quality that is coming through.

It's really this that will test Hansen the most. Until he starts building a younger side of his own and playing them consistently then he will always be open to the view that a blind, p!ssed German Sherpherd could have 'coached' the current established All Blacks squad to a 90% win rate.

We all know it's not that simple and Hansen deserves respect for his decisions but a lot of laypeople may not view it that way.

I don’t think it matters what the layperson thinks George.  NZ picks the next generation quicker than anyone else because you are only as good as your last game in this team and if that game wasn’t good enough there are 1 or 2 players who can step in for their chance.  The fact is he has introduced a lot of talent into this side and it is getting younger.  I think Hansen has achieved the holy grail of International Coaching; he’s kept the stone rolling – older players weeded out and new blood injected – whilst maintaining standards.  Julian Savea, Aaron Smith, Dane Coles, Joe Moody, Brodie Retallick, Malakai Fekitoa, Beauden Barratt, Sam Cane….that’s an impressive roll call of players who have assimilated into the world’s most successful international team whilst the team itself has only improved from its position in 2011.

Emack – I know you’ve got a bit of man-love for Matt Todd, fine player he is, but I don’t think he’ll hang around for too long.  Sam Cane will slot in as the starting 7 and I think Ardie Savea will emerge with a blast this season after a false start.

I don’t see the team being weaker post 2015….I’m forever excited by the talent we produce and it never ceases to amaze how quickly our young’uns adapt to NPC and Super rugby before making the step up to the big time.

chewed_mintie wrote:I don’t think it matters what the layperson thinks George.  NZ picks the next generation quicker than anyone else because you are only as good as your last game in this team and if that game wasn’t good enough there are 1 or 2 players who can step in for their chance.  The fact is he has introduced a lot of talent into this side and it is getting younger.  I think Hansen has achieved the holy grail of International Coaching; he’s kept the stone rolling – older players weeded out and new blood injected – whilst maintaining standards.  Julian Savea, Aaron Smith, Dane Coles, Joe Moody, Brodie Retallick, Malakai Fekitoa, Beauden Barratt, Sam Cane….that’s an impressive roll call of players who have assimilated into the world’s most successful international team whilst the team itself has only improved from its position in 2011.

Emack – I know you’ve got a bit of man-love for Matt Todd, fine player he is, but I don’t think he’ll hang around for too long.  Sam Cane will slot in as the starting 7 and I think Ardie Savea will emerge with a blast this season after a false start.

I don’t see the team being weaker post 2015….I’m forever excited by the talent we produce and it never ceases to amaze how quickly our young’uns adapt to NPC and Super rugby before making the step up to the big time.

Joe Schmidt has introducted the same average per anumn new players (or possibly more) as Hanson and yet Schmidt has managed to boost standards immesurably, rising from 9th or something in the world to 3rd.

Fair play to him GG too, I rate Schmidt and Ireland. I believe that Schmidt will be an AB coach sooner rather than later. I would hate to see Gatland get the gig as his teams play dreadful rugby. Anyway, I digress….surely it could be argued that with the talent at Ireland’s disposal – getting from 9th to 3rd is easier than maintaining a winning record above 90% over 3 years? When you consider the competition in those countries ranked 9th to 3rd, there are easy pickings in that bunch. Kudos though to Ireland, as we all know SA and Australia are difficult to beat.

I dunno, it’s a different debate but Hansen’s team has achieved this in the face of a 110 year legacy….

chewed_mintie wrote:Fair play to him GG too, I rate Schmidt and Ireland.  I believe that Schmidt will be an AB coach sooner rather than later.  I would hate to see Gatland get the gig as his teams play dreadful rugby.  Anyway, I digress….surely it could be argued that with the talent at Ireland’s disposal – getting from 9th to 3rd is easier than maintaining a winning record above 90% over 3 years?  When you consider the competition in those countries ranked 9th to 3rd, there are easy pickings in that bunch.  Kudos though to Ireland, as we all know SA and Australia are difficult to beat.

I dunno, it’s a different debate but Hansen’s team has achieved this in the face of a 110 year legacy….

Hanson has signed on until 2017 now. On the subject of capping players quite a few of the players Hanson has capped have only received one to two caps so not sure if there is too much value in that.

Also surely it is easier to maintain standards than increase them, yes Ireland have talent but 3rd is our highest ever ranking.

NZ as you say have been the best team in the world for quite some time and they still are but have they really evolved under Hanson? Any time I read articles about how good Hanson is as a coach they cite his record and how the team has transitioned.

Yes the record is excellent but how has he achieved it, how is he a good coach?

I have also read a lot of articles that Hanson has the easiest job in the world. From grass roots to national team NZ rugby has a fully integrated fully symbiotic at all levels conveyor belt of rugby talent through very well administrated level from top to bottom. This makes it harder to really know how good Hanson really is.

Schmidt by contrast when taking up the Ireland job prior to the contract being signed insisted on structural changes to the IRFU prior to signing on. For example he insisted that the board selection committee (quango) was scrapped.

It's hard to measure a coach who coaches the All Blacks.

Yes, he has tons of pressure to sustain position.  But he has tons of acquired knowledge working behind him at every level, even down to schools, to get that job done.  New Zealand is city full of knowledge, not just a single townhouse(coach) doing it all.

But it's hard to measure an AB coach because there isn't anything above them to usually test them.  So we could look at them in the AIs and say, 'not exactly setting the world alight, is it?'.

But did they need to?  They have no obligation to show us how good they could be, just to win.  They went through the AIs in at most 3rd.... at the very most 3rd.  Lumbering through games like they were being forced to pant and then walking clear without a wheaze.

So the world can be hard on ABs coaches, asking what exactly they brought to their role that another good coach couldn't with the ammo at disposal. But more than any other side, the cliche does stand - you can only beat what's in front of you.  Don't blame NZ for being pragmatic and cantering to wins when they can.

Excellent table on Wiki showing each ABs coach's win percentage:

[th]Name[/th][th]Years[/th][th]Tests[/th][th]Won[/th][th]Drew[/th][th]Lost[/th][th]Win percentage[/th]

Alex McDonald	1949	4	0	0	4	0%
Tom Morrison	1950, 55–56	12	8	1	3	70.8%
Len Clode	1951	3	3	0	0	100%
Arthur Marslin	1953–54	5	3	0	2	60%
Dick Everest	1957	2	2	0	0	100%
Jack Sullivan	1958–60	11	6	1	4	59.1%
Neil McPhail	1961–65	20	16	2	2	85%
Ron Bush	1962	2	2	0	0	100%
Sir Fred Allen	1966–68	14	14	0	0	100%
Ivan Vodanovich	1969–71	10	4	1	5	45%
Bob Duff	1972–73	8	6	1	1	81.3%
John Stewart	1974–76	11	6	1	4	59.1%
Jack Gleeson	1977–78	13	10	0	3	76.9%
Eric Watson	1979–80	9	5	0	4	55.6%
Peter Burke	1981–82	11	9	0	2	81.8%
Bryce Rope	1983–84	12	9	1	2	79.2%
Sir Brian Lochore	1985–87	18	14	1	3	80.6%
Alex Wyllie	1988–91	29	25	1	3	87.9%
Laurie Mains	1992–95	34	23	1	10	69.1%
John Hart	1996–99	41	31	1	9	76.8%
Wayne Smith	2000–01	17	12	0	5	70.6%
John Mitchell[162]	2002–03	28	23	1	4	83.9%
Sir Graham Henry[163]	2004–11	103	88	0	15	85.4%
Steve Hansen	2012–	42	38	2	2	90.48%

What incredible longevity Henry achieved in the role.
It's not just 85% that he achieved, but 85% over 103 tests.
That's amazing consistency.

Yet Henry was one penalty away from being an abject failure in some eyes. SCW's stats (70%) aren't even up to the NZ average which is very harsh indeed.

Hansen's got the team to live up to its World Champion status as well as evolving the team. His selections have been bloody astute and I think that is a direct riposte to anyone who thinks that a monkey could coach NZ. He has to think about who suits NZ's style of play the best as well.

Just remember to build this record you don't have to be miles better than everyone. You just have to be a little better than each team you face on the scoreboard each time.

Ireland's going to be a real threat with Schmidt's emphasis on accuracy and basics. Passing and breakdown work added to their physicality and set piece mean that they are one of the favourites next year, make no mistake, and I can't wait to see how they do in the 6N.

Disney, what is it that makes Hanson a great coach? Why does he have a 90% win rate?

GunsGerms wrote:

chewed_mintie wrote:I don’t think it matters what the layperson thinks George.  NZ picks the next generation quicker than anyone else because you are only as good as your last game in this team and if that game wasn’t good enough there are 1 or 2 players who can step in for their chance.  The fact is he has introduced a lot of talent into this side and it is getting younger.  I think Hansen has achieved the holy grail of International Coaching; he’s kept the stone rolling – older players weeded out and new blood injected – whilst maintaining standards.  Julian Savea, Aaron Smith, Dane Coles, Joe Moody, Brodie Retallick, Malakai Fekitoa, Beauden Barratt, Sam Cane….that’s an impressive roll call of players who have assimilated into the world’s most successful international team whilst the team itself has only improved from its position in 2011.

Emack – I know you’ve got a bit of man-love for Matt Todd, fine player he is, but I don’t think he’ll hang around for too long.  Sam Cane will slot in as the starting 7 and I think Ardie Savea will emerge with a blast this season after a false start.

I don’t see the team being weaker post 2015….I’m forever excited by the talent we produce and it never ceases to amaze how quickly our young’uns adapt to NPC and Super rugby before making the step up to the big time.

Joe Schmidt has introducted the same average per anumn new players (or possibly more) as Hanson and yet Schmidt has managed to boost standards immesurably, rising from 9th or something in the world to 3rd.

Yes but Joe Schmidt didn't take over from the most successful winning coach of all time. Ireland had poor coaching and structures in place beforehand so Schmidts success is partly fixing poor standards. Hansen has improved high qualty standards.

What he has introduced is greater continuity and depth by bringing in players earlier than one usually would at this level. Can't remember the count but its around 30 new players since the World cup while maintaining a 90% win rate? Unheard of in any era. Like Disney I love it when we have to introduce new players because its about continuity, keeping the treadmll going. Our sxv and ITM sides play to such high standards with all sxv sides playing largely the AB template the AB environment is usually enough to bring them up to the next level.

By signing Hansen for next year now he will be able to look at the McCaw, Kaino type replacements now rather than someone picking that task up a year later.

Not entirely true. Schmidts predecessor Declan Kidney was world coach of the year 2009.

Anyway surely if you are inheriting a mess there is much more work to do?

Like I said Schmidt has introduced the same if not a superior average new caps but he has more meaningful ones whereas Hanson caps capped lots of players only for one a two caps so those stats are misleading.

Can anyone actually point out what makes Hanson a great coach?

Off the top of my head:
Experience coaching internationally with Wales
Experience as the NZ assistant coach for 8 years
Familiarity with the NZ set up, way of doing things and the players themselves
Selection-introducing new blood that has proven to be world class. This includes his assistants-I didn't rate Foster and McLean but they've done brilliantly. Fox as advisor is great and hey may bring back Wayne Smith
Timing-signing his contract early so that it doesn't take away from focus for 2015. Bet he's in the ear of the senior players
Media-big surprise here-thought he was going to be difficult with the media but he's relaxed, confident, friendly and humble. Not to mention magnanimous and sporting when the team hasn't got the win
Ruthless-standing down guys, telling some go go away and work on something, savvy with how public he is about it
Innovative-the two out forward passing you see opens up space. A Hansen trademark
Lucky-he's in charge of a great team with a great heritage
Aware of players' lives outside rugby and how it affects their performance on the field

And to quote someone who was talking about Fred Allen: "Look at the bloody record".

GG. What makes Hansen a great coach? His ability to maintain consistency with a team that has evolved substantially. Retallick, Savea, Smith, Barrett, Cruden, moody, Coles, Faumuina, Ben Smith, Fekitoa, Thrush and a few more have been blooded and many of those are certain starters. Look at the 2011 starting team and the one now and there are big differences.

Consistency is the hardest thing to achieve in world rugby and look at the teams NZ plays year in year out to achieve that consistency.

In 2012 he adapted a new style of play using the counter as an attacking weapon and introducing a kicking game that saw territory prized over possession.

In 2013 he achieved something unprecedented in the professional era: a perfect season.

In 2014, he saw that NZ were getting pinged at the breakdown and changed the way NZ approached that area and sacrificed possession for controlling the last quarter.

Maintaining standards doesn't mean using the same tactics. He's mixed it up and the team more than most people recognise.

Schmidt is a shrewd tactician and NZ are lucky to have him in the picture. He's not Ireland's to keep.

GunsGerms wrote:Not entirely true. Schmidts predecessor Declan Kidney was world coach of the year 2009.

Anyway surely if you are inheriting a mess there is much more work to do?

Like I said Schmidt has introduced the same if not a superior average new caps but he has more meaningful ones whereas Hanson caps capped lots of players only for one a two caps so those stats are misleading.

Can anyone actually point out what makes Hanson a great coach?

Well the number of times folk wanted him removed on these boards were plenty. You don't se any Kiwi's wanting that of Hansen. He's done everything right so far and more.

He's managed his players brilliantly, kept the very high standards right up there, doesn't mess his words and is totally in tune with the modern demands of the game, his side,  and their fans. Disney and Kia have more han pointed out enough reasons. You can't just keep asking what makes him a good coach as a response. You point out what you think makes a good coach and I put it to you that Hansen has most of those traits.

It seems to me he is a bit of an enigma. ioth Kia and Disney made good points but by and large anyone I ask or any article I read about Hanson very few people are actually able to point out exactly what he is doing that has lead to the 90% record or the specific characterictics or methods that make him a trailblazer. However, most Irish fans would have no problem what so ever pointing out what makes Joe Schmidt a top coach. Just something curious I have noticed.

GunsGerms wrote:It seems to me he is a bit of an enigma. ioth Kia and Disney made good points but by and large anyone I ask or any article I read about Hanson very few people are actually able to point out exactly what he is doing that has lead to the 90% record or the specific characterictics or methods that make him a trailblazer. However, most Irish fans would have no problem what so ever pointing out what makes Joe Schmidt a top coach. Just something curious I have noticed.

no guns...you are just not listening. Okay...you list Schmidts good points., and we'll go from there.

And two things...since when is being a trailblazer a key attribute of a gret coach. Yes it has its place but this is about coaching an International rugby team to get the best results possible. 'Trailblazing' suggests recklessness more than innovation.

And the 90% is not a goal in itself so cannot be explained directly. It is an arbitrury figure that is the mathematical result of the sides scores, achieved through the preparation, selection, coaching and execution of the side on the field, something the coach has a huge part of.

I think what e have here is Irish fans have had a taste of what truly good inernational coaching is. We are used to it, and Schmidt is a result of, not an exception to, the NZ thinking and coaching of the game. Vern Cotter and Gatland are as well, and you can bet all 3 have at the back of heir minds at some time Hansens position as their primary goal. There is a reason for that.

Taylorman you are getting in a twist over nothing.

Ireland has had kiwi coaches before, Warren Gatland and Murray Kidd coached Ireland in the past. Rob Penney, Pat Lam, Johnno Gibbs etc. etc. have also coached at provincial level. Also our two previous Irish coaches Declan Kidney and Eddie O'Sullivan were very good coaches. EOS also managed to drag Ireland to 3 in the world by hammering SA too and Kidney won a grand slam and coach of the year in '09.

I'm still not convinced that you actually know why you think Hanson is such a great coach though.

I'd say that, even taking into account the higher quality of players, it's a greater achievement to keep a side at the very top for a significant period than improving a fairly poor side into a decent one.

Cyril wrote:I'd say that, even taking into account the higher quality of players, it's a greater achievement to keep a side at the very top for a significant period than improving a fairly poor side into a decent one.

Thanks for your input Cyril. Not really debating that though. The question I'm more interested in anyway is how has Hanson achieved that and what characteristics and methods does he have that have helped him get there. What makes him a great coach?

I was replying to your view that it's easier to maintain standards than increase them. It really depends where you're starting from.

Maintaining and increasing standards mean very different things from Irish and NZ perspectives.

disneychilly wrote:Yet Henry was one penalty away from being an abject failure in some eyes. SCW's stats (70%) aren't even up to the NZ average which is very harsh indeed.

Hansen's got the team to live up to its World Champion status as well as evolving the team. His selections have been bloody astute and I think that is a direct riposte to anyone who thinks that a monkey could coach NZ. He has to think about who suits NZ's style of play the best as well.

Just remember to build this record you don't have to be miles better than everyone. You just have to be a little better than each team you face on the scoreboard each time.

Ireland's going to be a real threat with Schmidt's emphasis on accuracy and basics. Passing and breakdown work added to their physicality and set piece mean that they are one of the favourites next year, make no mistake, and I can't wait to see how they do in the 6N.

Its apples and oranges to be fair. You can't compare England to NZ in rugby and say win rate vs. win rate. Its not realistic.

Say Henry took over England in 04 instead of NZ... would he have achieved a 70% win rate... perhaps, perhaps not but I doubt it to be honest. Hell, I think you could get about two dozen coaches in NZ currently who would achieve a win rate of >80%. You have to have the players at the end of the day. You can be the greatest coach in the world but it ain't a hill of beans if you don't have what it takes on the pitch.
NZ have a great conveyor belt of being able to replace quality with quality. SA to a lesser extent but the rest have to make do with good and bad cycles.

Take John Mitchell for instance. He had a good record... a very good record to be fair but was universally panned for his obtuse powder puff forwards approach and is seen as a failure. Additionally his post NZ work has be at best adequate.

Just to give some people some perspective before they kneel down and kiss Hansens feet.

Wales' head coaches in pro era

Bowring 95-98. Win Rate 52%.
Henry 98-02. Win rate 59%.
Hansen 02-04. Win rate 35%.
Ruddock 04-06. Win rate 65%.
Jenkins 06-07. Win rate 30%.
Gatland 07-14. Win rate 50%.

Not saying that he ain't a top class coach but he had a very poor record with Wales. Very poor. Just think how bad Jenkins is held in Welsh people's minds. Hansen's record wasn't that far off.

Sometimes I read people's posts and its like he won the world cup with Italy/Samoa/Tonga etc etc. Bit of perspective needed perhaps.

Hansen ten years ago isn't the same as Hansen now. With eight years' experience as an AB assistant and three in the top spot, don't you think he actually learned anything in that time?

disneychilly wrote:Hansen ten years ago isn't the same as Hansen now. With eight years' experience as an AB assistant and three in the top spot, don't you think he actually learned anything in that time?

Does experience necessarily make you a better coach?

See Andy Robinson after he took over from SCW in 2004, SCW himself after 2004, John Mitchell post 2003 even Jake White post 2007.

He was inexperienced generally when he was at Wales but then again so are many. SCW was what head coach at London Irish for 1 season and the assistant coach at Bath when he took the England job.

Hansen took over from Henry and the win rate fell by 24% points when he was at Wales.

You have to admit that the players he has with NZ at the moment are literally to die for. How wrong can you go when your biggest decision is Liam Messam or Jerome Kaino?
Its a stark difference to when he was at Wales and the strength in depth was a little bare.

When John Mitchell can generate a 83% win rate with NZ then I think that's all that needs to be said.

You're damn right it does. Henry was the first coach retained after a RWC failure. Look what happened after.

disneychilly wrote:You're damn right it does. Henry was the first coach retained after a RWC failure. Look what happened after.

I think though that the 07 loss to France was more a case of a flash in the pan rather than being outclassed etc, shown to be inferior which previous teams experienced at RWC's. Had France literally blown NZ away in the QF I think his tenure would have ended that day. Given they sort of nicked NZ's wallet I imagine many thought they were hard done by. Even Jake White post victory said NZ were the best in the world.

fa0019 wrote:

disneychilly wrote:Hansen ten years ago isn't the same as Hansen now. With eight years' experience as an AB assistant and three in the top spot, don't you think he actually learned anything in that time?

Does experience necessarily make you a better coach?

Can't believe anyone would actually ask that. In any sport, profession or even simple hobbies.

GunsGerms wrote:Taylorman you are getting in a twist over nothing.

Ireland has had kiwi coaches before, Warren Gatland and Murray Kidd coached Ireland in the past. Rob Penney, Pat Lam, Johnno Gibbs etc. etc. have also coached at provincial level. Also our two previous Irish coaches Declan Kidney and Eddie O'Sullivan were very good coaches. EOS also managed to drag Ireland to 3 in the world by hammering SA too and Kidney won a grand slam and coach of the year in '09.

I'm still not convinced that you actually know why you think Hanson is such a great coach though.

Not getting twisted. You are just adopting a simple approach of sticking your head in the sand. You've been given 50 reaons as to what makes Hansen a great coach yet fail to 'see' anything. You've been asked to provide why Schmidt is such a good coach since 'any Irishman would be able to tell me' (although not one, including you guns, actually has).

Perhaps ignorance is bliss then? Well at least that makes more sense.

fa0019 wrote:Just to give some people some perspective before they kneel down and kiss Hansens feet.

Wales' head coaches in pro era

Bowring 95-98. Win Rate 52%.
Henry 98-02. Win rate 59%.
Hansen 02-04. Win rate 35%.
Ruddock 04-06. Win rate 65%.
Jenkins 06-07. Win rate 30%.
Gatland 07-14. Win rate 50%.

Not saying that he ain't a top class coach but he had a very poor record with Wales. Very poor. Just think how bad Jenkins is held in Welsh people's minds. Hansen's record wasn't that far off.

Sometimes I read people's posts and its like he won the world cup with Italy/Samoa/Tonga etc etc. Bit of perspective needed perhaps.

You say it like we don't know this Fa. People learn and as Disney says, that is how one improves in life. Or is it you expect incoming International coaches to be as good as they ever will be from day 1?

What do reckon to the performance of the team ignoring results?

I get the sense that people don't rate a perfect season last year, an over 90% win rate over 42 tests, a RWC winner, multiple 3/4 nations champs, continual NH whitewashes very highly. Any half wit coach could have achieved all that given the woeful state of world rugby right now.

And I'm looking forward to 2017 when we can finally get a decent coach that knows what he's doing.

*sarcasm*

I think he s decent.

In terms of what makes Hansen a good coach:

Continuity:
He maintained the very high (the highest we have ever had) standards set by the Henry/ Hansen/ Smith regime

Introducing new talent without sacrificing standards
He has introduced nearly 30 players in the 3 seasons since the world cup while 'increasing' the winning percentage. Of those players Retallick, Aaron Smith, Julian Savea, Dan Coles are already arguably the best in the world in their positions while regulars Read, Whitelock, Ben Smith, Cruden have improved immeasurably under Hansens regime.

Tactical awareness

With the ever increasing focus on tight defences Hansens AB's utilise the kicking of the ball in a way no side has done before to beat defences to either score or regain the ball. A huge number of tries have been scored through tactical kicking-  the recent Wales match a perfect example. These are not one offs. These are the application of confident, skilled players executing to perfection.

Strategy/ Player management/ trust in player depth and ability

Hansen has not only managed the player sabbaticals well, he's encouraged it. What team could do without McCaw for half a year while he went swanning around the world, appearing in letterman, living it up. Hansen saw the McCaw and carter sabbaticals as chances to blood new players, and during the French series to blood Read as the obvious next captain.

The playing of a virtual second string side against Scotland in order to both extract faith in the depth of his selections and to preserve the side for the Welsh match was a masterstroke. Nobody picked that selection and no 'my grandmother could coach the all Blacks' coach would have put that side on the field. It is the AB environment that encourages belief in themselves that Hansen is able to do that. He gets repaid by the onfield side. And Hansen knew he would be crucified in NZ for throwing away a 100+ year old record seemingly needlessly. That only served to solidify the confidence Kiwi's have in Hansen as a coach, and why we have all fully accepted his reappointment regardless of the World cup result.

Another is instilling the confidence in his bench to make a diference. Barrett, easily the best sub in test rugby has come on and nailed several tests through simply having a go 100%. Slade coming on virtually ripped the game from Wales single handedly. Hansens ensures that his bench don't just replace tired players. They're there to win the match, take over the play when the opposition is tiring.

Media skills
Hansen is now at home with the media where in the Henry era he wasn't as astute. He has grown in this area and is as shrewd as it gets, knowing exactly what to say and not say. He has the respect of the general and rugby public in NZ and that is one of the toughest trophies to earn.

Discipline and integrity of the AB jersey.
He has mainatined the philosophy that the AB jersey is bigger than everyone that wears it. Every player's goal is to leave the jersey in a better state than when he first got it.
Take the two disciplinary issues facing Oz and NZ this year.

The Beale text controversy gets pushed under the carpet, results in a coach resigning and is generally handled by all parties as bad as it possibly could be.

Cruden misses the plane after a night out and Hansen acts swiftly. Where he could have put him on the next plane he chose the  hard line- no tour for Cruden. Disrespect the jersey, the team, and pay the consequences. It's a decision I believe contributed significantly to the loss in SA with Barrett playing a very poor match. But in terms of standards, the absolute correct decision. And unlike Oz, no Senior players crying support for Cruden, no fuss, no tantrums. Everyone gets on with it and now its all forgotten, Cruden back in camp.

Results
90% win record. 100% retention of the Bledisloe cup. 100% retention of the never having lost versus Scotland, Ireland and Argentina. 100% wins home and away in the new Rugby championship for the first two years, a draw and loss this year, the only loss coming when the title was wrapped up. IRB coach of the year 2012, 13 and 14.

...and on next year...

Hansen's view is that this AB side has 20% improvement in it for 2015. This year's anomalies were caused because of poor decision making and poor execution. On the plus side he was rapt that his side knows how to win ugly, win where other sides wouldn't have- last years Ireland match and several this year a testament to the absolute belief across the side.

That's his aim for next year. To increase levels of decision making and accuracy.

I think I (and most kiwi's) will be happy with that.

Every coach serves an apprenticeship,Hansens was 12-10 years ago with Wales his record
was poor.BUT I`ve heard it said steps he took then paved the way for 3 GRAND SLAMS
in 5 years.

SCW had a crap start to his career both Robinson and Ashton had better win/loss stats
to the time he was sacked.Had he been an NZ Coach he`d have been fired post 1999RWC,
Mitchell had an 82?% win stat with a powder puff pack[quote],his side lost to England by
2 and 3 points.One of those an A team,and at one time he was England`s forward Coach
under SCW so what does that tell you?

Of the 33 man 2011 RWC squad 17 remain,6 of those Bench players ,4 Starters long term
injured.Two returned from overseas in the last year,one just returned to the squad.

Only about 2 of his squads haven't been injured at some point for some time in the
last 4 years.Players fed in have fitted in more or less seamlessly the results speak
for them selves.

The fact that many times in the last 2 years when only 1 loss and 2 draws occurred
many being achieved on or in overtime.The quality of leadership in the team and
the Coaching squad.

What has he achieved other sides have not,Defence of the rolling maul better than
any other side.Pacing the game so his side is fitter,Bench management,handling the
Yellow Card.Adapting game plans on the fly better than other sides etc.the TEAM
meaning more than individuals.

Come 2016 ALL sides will face the post RWC upheavel of players leaving etc.post
2003 Nz lost a Team,2007 a whole squad,2011 about half a squad and adapted.

NZRFU wants all those of contract Carter,Woodcock,McCaw,Nonu,C.Smith and
Faumina to declare there plans as early as possible to avoid disruption.

A Squad odd around 50 players will be in the frame come 2016 all singing from
the same songsheet.From kids to the Test side via Itm,super,Youth ,and 7`s.

The important thing from NZ point of view is NOT the Coaching team but the
PRINCIPLE of CONTINUITY.

Bang on Tman. Guns, it'd be great to get an itemised rundown like that of why Schmidt is the best coach to ever walk the planet.

To summarise then I think we have to wait until (and if) he gets another job. Bit of a failure at Wales in comparison to others and has kept NZ on top in a time where Aus and SA are struggling.

For me you can take results out of the picture a bit as with the players NZ have they should be doing what they're doing. For me personally the performances have been ok but they haven't been dominating teams. I've seen a fair few performances where they could/should have been beaten and have looked 2nd best for long periods. I've never bought that it's a good thing to look 2nd best and win especially from the platform NZ have.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw5YcuMJQFo

Yeah, good call 7.5. Let's assess the quality of a coach by 'taking results out of the picture'.

I think you have to at least to some extent. I'd expect any coach to be dominating with this NZ team so the only time I'd pay a lot of attention was if the results were a string of losses. Do you disagree? Do you look at the Aus team and think wow they're playing so well we're doing amazingly well to beat them? I'd be thinking the win is the least we're after.

I don't know 7.5. I think, as soon as you take results out of the equation, it gets a bit theoretical. When it comes to identifying the best you need to look back not forward. Would you say the current ABs squad is the best AB team ever? I wouldn't. It has amongst the highest winning percentage though. You could say world rugby is weak. I wouldn't. SH used to hammer the NH without fail but it's tightened up considerably (thanks to import coaches you'd have to conclude, right?). So the reality is, the ABs have an edge, that edge comes from somewhere.

Where????

The point is surely that the team has been rebuilt,and that they continue to win injuries
have been coped with.The ability of a good team is to win ugly the AB`s have been doing
that all year.

Key players like Carter,Cruden,Nonu,Woodcock,Cory Jane,Romano,Dagg,McCaw,Read,Kaino
have all been injured.Substitutes identified one loss all year and that one could have gone
either way.

This year has been at least since Ellis Park a dry run for the RWC trying to foresee and
overcome all obstacles.

Shadow boxing I could name the squad and first team now and wouldn't be far wrong
barring injuries.Circumstances change things do you REALLY think if the RC had been
on the line at Ellis Park.Barrett would have started at10?