Hanson confirms leaving the All Blacks...

Probably the worst kept secret, but Steve Hansen has announced he will step down after the 2019 World Cup. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/46561489)

But the real reason for me posting this, is so stop the rumours and invasion into my privacy. I can confirm, I will not be taking the position of All Black coach. They pleaded with me, and have offered obscene amounts of money but I have to put my family first and as such have declined the position.

NZRU have said how disappointed they are, and they will now have to look to the next best coaches like Schmidt or Gatland.

I have a feeling Gatland will sneak it. Wales will have to reach semi finals but I am sure if they do it will be his. That is unless Ireland win outright in which case it will be offered to Schmidt and I'm sure his Mrs will cope

Yeah funny things can happen over a summer. Hansen isnt endorsing Fozzie in a way that sounds convincing and I think theyve had a think and want to encourage any chance of Schmidt reconsidering.

Although Im not a fan of Schmidts limited albeit necessary gameplan, hes shown an ability to forge relationships, help build an infrastructure that serves to underpin growth at lower levels, something he wasnt doing as 2IC here.

Although we have a very good infrastructure, and also a great framework at the AB level, Schmidt is a communicator, is able to build trust and support, and is super likeable.

For me Id ask Fozzie to remain where he is for two years, though that might not be appreciated, and bring in Schmidt and Razor, possibly the only candidate who’d be willing to take a secondary role, Gats, Schmidt, Joseph, Rennie, Cotter all not likely to want to hand control over.

Can see Gats or Joseph in the role, but a Schmidt Razor combo excites.

Also bring in OGara

Tbh it'll be nice to hear the end of his whinging, hes pretty embarassing at times and the shirt deserves better.

Itll be quite with no Hansen, Gats or Jones around.

Wheres the fun it that?

I see your press are touting Hansen as a potential Lions coach for 21. That would be hilarious. When will a NHer actually be qualified for this job?

Taylorman wrote:I see your press are touting Hansen as a potential Lions coach for 21. That would be hilarious. When will a NHer actually be qualified for this job?

He obviously thinks he hasn't quite reached the pinnacle of rugby. Its that colonial inferiority again.

And this remark is from yet another NZ fan still reeling after 1971, the year NZ discovered what rugby was supposed to look like

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHozn0YXAeE

Taylorman wrote:Yeah funny things can happen over a summer. Hansen isnt endorsing Fozzie in a way that sounds convincing and I think theyve had a think and want to encourage any chance of Schmidt reconsidering.

Although Im not a fan of Schmidts limited albeit necessary gameplan, hes shown an ability to forge relationships, help build an infrastructure that serves to underpin growth at lower levels, something he wasnt doing as 2IC here.

Although we have a very good infrastructure, and also a great framework at the AB level, Schmidt is a communicator, is able to build trust and support, and is super likeable.

For me Id ask Fozzie to remain where he is for two years, though that might not be appreciated, and bring in Schmidt and Razor, possibly the only candidate who’d be willing to take a secondary role, Gats, Schmidt, Joseph, Rennie, Cotter all not likely to want to hand control over.

Can see Gats or Joseph in the role, but a Schmidt Razor combo excites.

Also bring in OGara

You have demonstrated time and time again you don't understand Schmidt's game plan so its hardly surprising. You would'nt spot a good coach if he was sitting on your face.

Taylorman wrote:I see your press are touting Hansen as a potential Lions coach for 21. That would be hilarious. When will a NHer actually be qualified for this job?

That would be a disaster as he has already proven to be a flop in the NH. The last time a SH flop was given the Lions gig was when Henry brought the Lions to Australia and totally blew it with an incredibly talented Lions squad. Gatland and Schmidt would deserve Lions gigs, Hanson not in my view.

Can't be just a coincidence, can it...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/46588442

Edit: Should have read the article.

I guess Eddie is also in the frame for NZ....

Pie wrote:

Taylorman wrote:I see your press are touting Hansen as a potential Lions coach for 21. That would be hilarious. When will a NHer actually be qualified for this job?

He obviously thinks he hasn't quite reached the pinnacle of rugby. Its that colonial inferiority again.

And this remark is from yet another NZ fan still reeling after 1971, the year NZ discovered what rugby was supposed to look like

Its not Hansen making the comment. Its your own press.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:I see your press are touting Hansen as a potential Lions coach for 21. That would be hilarious. When will a NHer actually be qualified for this job?

That would be a disaster as he has already proven to be a flop in the NH. The last time a SH flop was given the Lions gig was when Henry brought the Lions to Australia and totally blew it with an incredibly talented Lions squad. Gatland and Schmidt would deserve Lions gigs, Hanson not in my view.

The only recent flop is 2005. NH coached obviously, and since then they havent allowed another.

The NZ coached Lions all either won, or won at least a test, certainly not the norm for a Lions team coming here.

Oh thats right...Mcgeechan won one in SA, a reasonable effort against a solid Bok side, albeit a dead rubber. Great series though.

Judging Hansen off a 20 year old Welsh record is just plain stupid. In what possible way isnt it? Hes the most successful coach in the last 7 years. period.

Personally I think they give it to the kiwis to stop all the infighting, not that it does, BODs dropping hilarious, and ultimately correct.

If you say so. I dont rate him in the same league as Schmidt who in his first international coaching year won the six nations. Similar story with Gatland. Much better coaches. Not even close.

Collapse2005 wrote:If you say so. I dont rate him in the same league as Schmidt who in his first international coaching year won the six nations. Similar story with Gatland. Much better coaches. Not even close.

Well, no one on any planet has ever said Hansens tenure with Wales was any good and its nonsensical to compare his effort as Wales coach twenty years ago as his overall ability as a coach. Schmidt had his failures too, as did Gatland but the best coaches do a thing called 'learning' a concept you seem to think exists outside Hansen's credentials.

In terms of success they have different challenges, one had to chase from back in the pack, one had to maintain the front runners position. Hansen has not once relinquished the top position in the seven years he has had the side. Hes has lost many great players yet has accepted that challenge and built depth by bringing players in earlier than they're ready for.

Hes also had to manage the massive number of players opting to go north, something neither Schmidt nor Gatland have had to deal with in anywhere near the same sort of numbers, and who, in fact, benefit from that very process.

Hansen didnt have the drift north nor the higher standard of comp in the late 90s that Gatland and Schmidt have now. The players were 'useless' then, compared to now.

Taylorman wrote:

Pie wrote:

Taylorman wrote:I see your press are touting Hansen as a potential Lions coach for 21. That would be hilarious. When will a NHer actually be qualified for this job?

He obviously thinks he hasn't quite reached the pinnacle of rugby. Its that colonial inferiority again.

And this remark is from yet another NZ fan still reeling after 1971, the year NZ discovered what rugby was supposed to look like

Its not Hansen making the comment. Its your own press.

And I'm explaining his thought process since you clearly don't understand it.'

Your saying the writer thinks Hansen hasn't reached the pinnacle of rugby? and he thinks that is because Hansen has a 'colonial inferiority'.

hmmm. hes more deluded than I thought then, well someone is.

You have a Merry Xmas pie, and perhaps have an extra helping of that Humble variety, could do you wonders.

Taylorman wrote:Your saying the writer thinks Hansen hasn't reached the pinnacle of rugby? and he thinks that is because Hansen has a 'colonial inferiority'.

hmmm. hes more deluded than I thought then, well someone is.

You have a Merry Xmas pie, and perhaps have an extra helping of that Humble variety, could do you wonders.

Gotta hand it to you, Tman.... nice slide.

Taylorman wrote:
Well, no one on any planet has ever said Hansens tenure with Wales was any good and its nonsensical to compare his effort as Wales coach twenty years ago as his overall ability as a coach. Schmidt had his failures too, as did Gatland but the best coaches do a thing called 'learning' a concept you seem to think exists outside Hansen's credentials.

Is it though? This site seems to be a good 50% of WUMming from the usual suspects, and I don't think that's what you're doing TMan, but surely someone's coaching record 15 years ago (not 20) is relevant to...well...their ability as a Head Coach? Why is that nonsensical to include the previous international Head Coach role he held to his current role?

I know what you're generally trying to say on the topic of Hansen v Schmidt, NH v SH. And you're not necessarily wrong. You just seem to be getting a bit black-and-white on certain issues, particularly when people counter your points, even if they're WUMming. All nuance gets lost and you're wrapping yourself in statements like that above that are obviously wide of the mark.

Look if youre saying that Schmidts record as of today should get comparef to hansens abilities of twenty years ago as a fair comparison of their overall abilities then youre wrong which is all I get from your comment. Statements like they wouldnt want him ‘due to his last efforts with a NH side’ border on illiterate.

He would make a fine Lions coach because of that experience and what hes learned since. He would know more about the current crop of Lions based internationals than most UK coaches having for years keeping dossiers on them all and how to beat them. He would also know more about the South African players, grounds, conditions than any UK origin coach would have any idea of having toured there annually, and will have prepared teams to beat the Boks more times than any UK based coaches have had hot dinners. Hes also seen much of the SA Super rugby form. Pretty sure he didnt get all that from his Welsh coaching position, which is why I point out the naievity of the statement when consdering hansen for the Lions position. Hes qualified alright.

As would Schmidt or Gatland do well. Farrell might be the only coach in that league at the moment, I certainly wouldnt see Lancaster there.

Thats the problem with you recruiting SH coaches. Theyve now dominated the Lions scene and are still being touted despite the main ones leaving. And whether thats intentional...putting kiwi et other SH coaches in the either too hard or cant be bothered basket its not a good look when trying to convince others of the apparent strength of NH rugby.

I see Woodwards got it all wrong again. Criticising those coaches retiring for saying so prior to the world cup. He says hed rather not take the attention off the world cup focus so the talk isnt all about whos teplacing Hansen, Schmidt, gatland etc.

Just cos he was dumped at england before he could finish up.

Fact is those successful coaches who end on a high get the luxury of allowing their employers time to fill the position. Fans and media know in advance and can speculate as they please. Theyre not mutually exclusive.

In 2015 Henry and with him McCaw, Carter, Smith, Nonu etc all announced the world cup would be their swansong well in advance. Didnt seem to affect their focus and they won going away.

Yet despite the very latest example suggesting it isnt an issue, SCW criticises hansen.

I mean, durr.

Taylorman wrote:I see Woodwards got it all wrong again. Criticising those coaches retiring for saying so prior to the world cup. He says hed rather not take the attention off the world cup focus so the talk isnt all about whos teplacing Hansen, Schmidt, gatland etc.

Well he won't have to worry too much then.  We know who is replacing Schmidt.  We know who is replacing Gatland.  And I'm sure we'll soon enough know who will be replacing Hansen.  It's still 2018.  
Sometimes Woodward tries too hard to sound clinical....and I absolutely HATE this endless crap spouted in Rugby about "taking attention off...."  Crap pseudo-journo psychology guff.... 'taking the pressure off his players'.  Crud.  Game starts - pressure on.

Hansen would be a really good Lions coach. Him or Schmidt for SA.

Hansen's going to Leinster to take over from Lancaster who is going to Ireland. It's official. There's another one solved for Woodward.

SecretFly wrote:Hansen's going to Leinster to take over from Lancaster who is going to Ireland.  It's official.  There's another one solved for Woodward.

I think with a few more years down the track since Henry finished even NZ is probably more accepting of coaches, even AB ones, going overseas. Their rugby world is a lot smaller than the real world so 'flash' options are limited.

The more I think about it the more a Lions position might suit Hansen. Its nought to do with NZ yet puts him in a very familiar environment, as big as it gets where NZ arent involved at all. How much lead in time theyd need I don't know but the in then out nature of such a tour is right down his alley, would take pressure off the north finding someone so they can continue with their local comps and 6Ns and would present Hansen a redemption case for things northern.

Plus, and I hope Biltongs not tuning in, by 2023 the north are going to be far stronger than they are now, and the last two Lions tours suggest they can work together, finally.

With the talent at the disposal now amongst England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland, the Lions gig will soon enough prove its sell-by-date has arrived.

I just think it'll be too much to ask one Nation (no matter how good) to take on a combination of four increasingly well prepared and potent Nations alone.  Perhaps the Lions will morph into a combo NH v combo SH challenge in time.  I think that's how it'll have to go if it's not to become laughable.  Professionalism has truly arrived now.  The top European sides will still lose games but they won't be going back to cannon fodder sides pushing further into this century.  They'll get stronger.  SH teams will not dramatically fall away of course - but that gap won't exist like it has in the past.

SecretFly wrote:With the talent at the disposal now amongst England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland, the Lions gig will soon enough prove its sell-by-date has arrived.

I just think it'll be too much to ask one Nation (no matter how good) to take on a combination of four increasingly well prepared and potent Nations alone.  Perhaps the Lions will morph into a combo NH v combo SH challenge in time.  I think that's how it'll have to go if it's not to become laughable.  Professionalism has truly arrived now.  The top European sides will still lose games but they won't be going back to cannon fodder sides pushing further into this century.  They'll get stronger.  SH teams will not dramatically fall away of course - but that gap won't exist like it has in the past.

True.
Damn you.

Crusaders coach plus maybe WAYNE SMITH is more likely,Hansen may be still available
in some form of supremo role

I don't think Woodward's completely off the mark with what he's saying about announcing a coach's replacement 12-18 months before they leave.

It is complete conjecture to suggest it's a distraction, that people take their eye off the ball etc - but that doesn't mean it doesn't have an element of truth to it. I think it's completely natural for anyone to look ahead to the future when something is guaranteed to happen - whether that be a job, a move of location, something relationship-related, or whatever. Anything personal that is going to be a big upheaval will play on the mind. In this day and age, however, particularly with the psychology that surrounds professional sport, you'd expect the top coaches to not fall prey to looking beyond the necessities.

However, the Scarlets have definitely regressed this season - since Pivac was named Gatland's replacement. Injuries and no Barclay/Beirne are the two biggest factors, but there's still been a distinct lack of tactical/opposition-specific nous in certain games, particularly against Ulster recently. With Stephen Jones also in line to join Wales, it can't be overlooked that the loss of time, focus, and energy spent on jumping through the hoops of the recruitment process has probably affected the quality of coaching both Pivac and SJ have had at the Scarlets.

In a slightly different way, Wales have absolutely suffered in the year/18 months leading up to or just after a Lions Tour when Gatland has been involved. In 2013/14 they were really poor, and it felt like Gatland wrote off that season to focus on the RWC. In 2012 they were noticeably atrocious and it took Gatland coming back in during the 6Ns to help them to the GS.

Likewise in 2016/17. Not as dramatically poor, but in all honesty Wales should have won the 2016 6Ns, they were comfortably the most settled and least 'in transition' team of the lot. Didn't go for the throat in Ireland and ended up drawing the game, before not playing for the first 60 minutes against England. They're now looking much stronger than they have for a long time, and having Gatland there and solely focused on Wales is clearly making a difference.

The point I'd make in relation to Woodward's comments - and, tbh, I've only scanned headlines so might be repeating something he's said - is the way in which recruitment/coaching has become very cyclical. Namely, based around the 4 year RWC cycle. I don't think this is necessarily good for international teams in general, nor do I think it's good for coaches and their replacements. It gets to the point where we're now expecting coaches to go after a RWC - contracts are drawn up for after a WC (which is mid-season in the NH, which is crazy when you think about it) which in turn forces unions to announce their replacement long before the RWC itself to avoid a 'distraction'. But planning and announcing it this far in advance still has a distracting effect in itself, for sure. It's just very hard to quantify how much in each situation.

The four year cycle sounds like something HR love, because it's a template in which they can operate with relative certainty. But it doesn't reflect how sport, even professional sport, works.

Eddie Jones, for instance, was great when he came in for England. But then really poor. I've said it numerous times, but he is a Jose Mourinho coach. He's undeniably talented, but also attritional and limited in his longevity. England might do well in the RWC under him, but I have a feeling they're unlikely to consistently produce 'Eddie's best' under pressure, and that will make all the difference at a RWC. He's definitely a tournament coach, though, rather than someone to build an environment like Lancaster - hence EJ's success on the back of Lancaster's work. But how much of a second wind he can find with the current crop of players - particularly now the tackle/ruck laws have changed at his behest, inadvertently hindering England's biggest asset of aggression at the breakdown - is very much up in the air. He's showed signs this autumn, but the 6Ns will be a good litmus test for the RWC.

In any case, he survived being really poor as a coach during his losing streak. Why? Partly because of the success he had immediately before. But partly because it would be disruptive before a RWC. Yet, as football is showing - and as Eddie himself showed when he first got the job - a new coach can work wonders in a short space of time. Including when being under intense pressure.

I don't really buy the 'disrupting preparations for a WC' line as a genuine reason not to get rid of a coach. Yeah, it would be disruptive - but it sounds a bit more like 'well, this is the cycle we've agreed on, and we're not going to disrupt it, are we'? It sounds disruptive to those who want an easy transition, rather than doing what's best for the team, and typically those aren't people who end up running onto the pitch and actually playing the game.

So, in what is a weird statement, I think what I'm trying to say is that I'm in favour of sacking coaches just before a RWC. Like Argentina. And Australia. And during it, if you're France...

In all seriousness, it's more than that. There's definitely something psychologically relevant to 'knowing for certain' that this is the end of your current position or knowing you stand a good chance of at least making it toa RWC before getting fired. That could definitely work in your favour - go out on a high etc., or have the freedom to build something without the threat of immediate dismissal. But, also, when it comes to someone like Wales and Gatland, I feel like he'd be happy with another SF exit next year. A bit like the Lions Tour, he was happy with a draw. Both have been phenomenal achievements, really - but in some ways, doesn't every team want a coach who demands and even believes, however foolishly, that their team wins the RWC? Isn't that the whole point for a sport played by so few competitive countries? Am I being unrealistic?

If Pivac knows he should just try guiding the Scarlets into next season's Champions Cup - rather than going all out to try and get some more silverware before he leaves - he's probably going to do that. Because he's also got the extra worry of transitioning to a bigger, significantly different job with Wales.

I'm not sure how relevant this is to NZ tbh. You get the sense Hansen is less hands on/involved than NH coaches typically are.

But in general, I think Woodward has a point, if only because having this strict four year structure is becoming a bit of a limitation when it's adhered to rigidly (it also makes 6Ns a bit more boring when Italy are in constant transition, and at least one other team is 'building depth' or recovering for the Lions etc.).

Wouldn't worry about England under Jones. Bit of a hangover after the lions bit close to being back to our best.

Not even close 7.5. England imploded exactly as I said they would, 2 years into EJ's tenure. Admittedly more destructively than anticipated - backroom staff leaving, key positional issues, huge losing streak etc.

The reality is England are the most capable NH team all things considered, but only France beat them in the underachievement stakes. If you think that's England back to their best then you're undervaluing your country's ability.

Wow. And still beat Wales.

The game against Wales should've been a warning sign for England.

Reigning 6Ns champions, at home, doing nothing but kick the ball in the air all game and rely on physical defence in dreadful conditions. Would have been interesting to see had the weather not been particularly atrocious - had they used the same tactics you should definitely be worried as it shows a lack of knowing how to play against more attacking-with-ball-in-hand NH sides (like the Scotland game). They scraped a win, as happened in 2017 as well (admittedly both teams played much, much better in that game), thanks to Wales' inaccuracy (and the TMO ruling out a legitimate try for Wales). Wales are far from the finished article either - hardly the benchmark for England being 'at their best'. The two sides' trajectories after that game were telling, though, in terms of coaching preparation and stability. England 5th, Wales 2nd in the 6Ns. Wales unbeaten Summer Tour with a second string to rest Lions players, England lose their series against SA 2-1. The Autumn was better from England - but how much is that due to the freshness of a new coach coming in in John Mitchell? Hard to say.

As ever with you 7.5, and many England fans, you overestimate how good England were when they were winning - distinctly remember talk of 'if only we got to play NZ this autumn', 'how do we challenge NZ to become #1 in the world'. I know where this mentality comes from - it's often called English arrogance, but it's more nuanced than that, and in many ways it isn't your fault, it comes from the environment you're exposed to - but it and you were wrong. As many anticipated, not only would England's improvement level out quite quickly, but the improvements by other teams (namely Ireland) would pull England back down the pecking order. One other key element is how the changes to the tackle laws - driven by Eddie Jones throwing a strop after the Italy game and Mike Brown booting someone in the head - have hampered England's biggest component of their success under EJ. Can't kick the ball out of the ruck anymore.

England are good. When they're poor, they're never as poor as Wales are because of their respective rugby structures. But in the last 18 months under Eddie Jones they've played some shocking rugby and look out of ideas - that seems to be running right through the RFU as well.

England under EJ will rely on a fast start, physical dominance in every area, and relying on Owen Farrell's boot to kick for territory and points. Add in physical strike runners like Tuilagi and Cokanasiga, and it's effectively Woodward 2.0. And they'll win games that way - they have and they will again. Only NZ, SA, and Ireland can compete and nullify England's physicality on a consistent basis (i.e. 8 games out of 10, say). But when England are nullified they look very limited. Which perhaps goes without saying...but that's the point. EJ doesn't have a plan B, in part because he may not need one, but also because that's the coach he is. He's not in the same league a Schmidt (who is) or someone like Cotter who can build an environment and adapt it whilst not seeing a huge drop off in results and performances.



It's almost like you're still blinded by national allegiance 7.5?

Almost...

Was England's downturn a year long feint?  Would Jones play such a game?  WC is the prize, I guess he's man enough to try any angle.

Gotta be prepared to fight all yis bloody basterdes at your best from here on in.  Things is gonna get bloody!

Wales are about as negative and unambitious a side as there is in world rugby. Good in defence but offer little in attack and often terrible to watch (just ask their fans). England in a slump have still been too much for Wales. I don’t think Wales have too much more to offer than their usual plucky defence. England to move though the gears again to put them away once again.

Miaow, you just tend to type as many words as possible and don’t really get to the point. It’s mostly garbage to be honest.

Cyril wrote:Wales are about as negative and unambitious a side as there is in world rugby. Good in defence but offer little in attack and often terrible to watch (just ask their fans). England in a slump have still been too much for Wales. I don’t think Wales have too much more to offer than their usual plucky defence. England to move though the gears again to put them away once again.

Miaow, you just tend to type as many words as possible and don’t really get to the point. It’s mostly garbage to be honest.

Hit a nerve Cyril?

Nah.Just find you hilarious miaow. Summed it 2 comments that I underestimate England and then overestimate them without pause for thought.

Glad to inspire joy in you 7.5. Most of the time on this website you seem to be getting into petty arguments with other posters, often stemming from a weird (mis)interpretation of rugby on your part and a desire to troll, so I'm sure it's nice to make a change on that front.

Any thoughts on Steve Hansen leaving the All Blacks? Or anything else to add?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Nah.Just find you hilarious miaow. Summed it 2 comments that I underestimate England and then overestimate them without pause for thought.

Care to provide examples for that?

Yup. Your comments above.what do I win?

Direct quotes, 7.5. Show me where I've done what you say I've done.

Clear to see above. Unless even you lose interest in the long ramblings?

For argument's sake, let's say it's not clear to me. Show your working - show me where I've written what you've said I've written. Shouldn't be too hard!

It's not hard at all. It's all written above.

I'm asking you to show me the quotes 7.5 and you're refusing. Because you can't. Because they don't exist. Because what you've said is incorrect. And you know it.

Reductive misinterpretation is your modus operandi on this website. Not just with me - plenty of other posters seem to have this issue with you. It's boring, and one of the reasons this forum is nowhere near as good as it used to be several years ago/why the better posters have mostly left.

You know if you directly quote what I've written, it'll become abundantly clear that your suggestion that I said "[you, 7.5] underestimate England and then overestimate them without pause for thought" is quite clearly not true.

If you think it's clear, then go ahead. Please, show me the direct quite. Get this out of the way so the thread can get back on track and become a bit more productive.

Jees. It's above miaow. If you ramble so much even you are twisting yourself in knots give it a rest. As you suggested to me stuck to Hanson rather than Jones and England.

Can't quote me, cool. Got it.

Let's move on as agreed then if that's the case!

Well at least your down to 2 line posts.