@chris-b said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
@duluth Have you got Lam's results by year? Was his fourth year an aberration or was he on a declining trend?
Upwards trend. Complete collapse in 2012
2009: 1/4 vs NZ, 5/13 overall
2010: 2/4 vs NZ, 7/13 overall
2011 : 6/8 vs NZ, 11/18 overall
Steady improvement.. then 2012 was a collapse 0/8 vs NZ 4/18 overall
It all depends on what leeway you give him for the injury crisis
For a number of years, the Chiefs and the Highlanders were pretty ropey and the Hurricanes were the Hurricanes. Now all the other 4 franchises seem to be well run which makes the Blues stand out as the poorest.
I think it is connected to the head coach but goes beyond that. Look at the injuries the Chiefs are currently coping with. We in the Bay were baffled by Ardron's selection for the Chiefs given his lame work at number 8 for us that saw him benched often. Now not only does he look like a class player, he is also doing it as a lock - not just the head coach can be responsible for that transformation, the environment must be a key factor and the coaching team etc must have done some serious work on his game in the past few months.
And right now all the top 4 franchises seem to be able to bring in guys from anywhere and have them playing well as soon as they walk onto the grass in Super rugby.
With the Blues, it seems to have the opposite effect. Promising players quickly become a shadow of what they were before. Which suggests that the rot runs deep and shuffling the chairs/recruiting a star or 2 isn't going to change that.
@kiwipie said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
And right now all the top 4 franchises seem to be able to bring in guys from anywhere and have them playing well as soon as they walk onto the grass in Super rugby.
Which suggests that the rot runs deep and shuffling the chairs/recruiting a star or 2 isn't going to change that.
Yes, which has also being discussed in detail by various Blues fans. Problems with the board have been talked about ad nauseam, as have problems with recruitment (which Umaga has some responsibility for)
I know you didn't do this, but there is a strawman that the Blues fans only blame the coach which is absolutely not true
The coach should be judged for what he is control of: initial squad selection, match day selection, coaches he decides to delegate too, game plan, preparation etc etc
@kiwipie said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
Now all the other 4 franchises seem to be well run which makes the Blues stand out as the poorest.
Well we can expand it to look at a some results against non NZ sides
2 matches ago the Blues conceded 63 points at home against a Saffa side. The worst home defeat in history beating the previous record of 51 from 2004
7 matches ago was the most embarrassing loss in Blues history vs the Sunwolves. Great tactics of throw it around in 42 degree heat to tire out the smaller fitter guys who are used to the conditions..
Genuine question - are there any Blues fans happy with Umaga?
I see a lot of excuses for Umaga, and indeed support for Umaga, from people who aren't Blues supporters.
I understand that. He was a popular player and supporting him doesn't impact your team. In fact it helps your team..
@duluth well no it wont skew the %, but given the more frequent matches, and in a bad year you will potentially lose twice as many games as you would in one off years.
Not defending Umaga, just when you say by the end of 3 years he will have had 24 games v NZ teams, whereas say Henry would have taken 6 years for that many (not counting finals had Umagas Blues made it...)
What it does show is that Henry's % over a longer period is even more impressive, whereas short term success is (in theory) easier to achieve.
@taniwharugby said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
@duluth well no it wont skew the %, but given the more frequent matches, and in a bad year you will potentially lose twice as many games as you would in one off years.
Sure, it's possible to 'run up the score' to some degree. However that does not explain the trend, or the drop of from Kirwans shitty tenure.
It does show that he hasn't made gains on the other NZ sides in three years (I know some Umaga sycophants don't think its fair to compare a team to its contemporaries.. which of course is a ludicrous position and should be laughed at)
So from this point, what would be a pass mark in the last 5 derby matches? Three of these games are at Eden Park
One could be an aberration. Two out of five? That would show some signs of life I guess..
@kiwimurph that wasn't what he asked 
Pass mark is winning all the home games.
You can’t compare to the first part of the season and accept mediocrity as the new normal. We are in a hole, a good coach will get you out of it.
If you can’t even win your home games it’s all over.
Mind you, I though he should have resigned after the utter embarrassment of shipping 63 points on Eden Park.
@kirwan said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
Pass mark is winning all the home games.
You can’t compare to the first part of the season and accept mediocrity as the new normal. We are in a hole, a good coach will get you out of it.
If you can’t even win your home games it’s all over.
Mind you, I though he should have resigned after the utter embarrassment of shipping 63 points on Eden Park.
I think the Blues will be like the Chiefs of Pre Rennie days. Hopeless but will beat a NZ team at the wrong time to stuff that teams chances come the pointy end.
Personally I don’t think it would take a hell of lot to change the Blues around ,they have shown despite all the issues they do have with question marks over the coaching and recruitment especially they have for all intensive purposes been very competitive especially in the Conference games. .can think of far too many games over past 3 x seasons that the could of and should of won..but lacked leadership and direction at crucial times.
On the occasion they have let themselves down badly,losses away to the Lions a couple of seasons back,the last game against the Sunwolves from last year and a couple of weeks ago against the Sharks come to mind.
But in the main,they have always been there or there abouts which suggests to me they are not that far off..
There’s been a lot of comparisons to the Warriors,and all they have really changed is fitness and some very shrewd recruitment.
I do believe for these changes to happen,a similar mindset has to happen not just within the coach staff but also the organisation as a whole.
If Tana Umaga is to stay,coaching staff should get the boot,Tom Coventry should come on board as the assistant,great record with forwards.
From a franchise piece,the Blues have got to work a lot harder to make Auckland,Harbour & Northland super strong,back load all your best talent into those unions so the talent at least stays in the franchise..,make movement around the 3 x unions easy..get some real rivalry within the 3 partners..
Gee that doesn't made great reading for Tana. I'd been a defender of his on the grounds that he had inherited a team in bad shape and been unlucky with the sudden emergence of the hurricanes as an elite team, as well as the not so sudden emergence of the Highlanders. But when you look at how much better Lam and Kirwan's record was then it's a lot harder to argue that he's doing the best with what he's got.
@steven-harris said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
If Tana Umaga is to stay,coaching staff should get the boot,Tom Coventry should come on board as the assistant,great record with forwards.
The coaching staff Umaga picked..
I would be fine with Coventry taking over as head coach and appointing his own assistants. The Blues seem to be in a similar position to where Harbour was a couple of years ago. Jackson had made changes at NH but made no progress in terms of results. Coventry followed Jackson and completed the job
Or Pivac. I have to throw that name in there. I've been calling for him to coach the Blues for 15 years on here.. One day someone might listen to me
@duluth said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
Jackson had made changes at NH but made no progress in terms of results
To be fair to Jackson, he took them from easy beats of the Championship to the Premiership competition.
@hooroo said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
@kirwan said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
Pass mark is winning all the home games.
You can’t compare to the first part of the season and accept mediocrity as the new normal. We are in a hole, a good coach will get you out of it.
If you can’t even win your home games it’s all over.
Mind you, I though he should have resigned after the utter embarrassment of shipping 63 points on Eden Park.
I think the Blues will be like the Chiefs of Pre Rennie days. Hopeless but will beat a NZ team at the wrong time to stuff that teams chances come the pointy end.
we were the kings of coming home with a wet sail. Played awesome open footy when the pressure of actually getting something out of the season was off. Foster was the master of it.
What changed? How fast did it change?
@duluth said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
What changed? How fast did it change?
New coach seemed to help, along with have a super AB coach to pull the strings too
@hooroo said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
@duluth said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
What changed? How fast did it change?
New coach seemed to help, along with have a super AB coach to pull the strings too
And the recruitment of an 1st five totally suited to carving up at Super level. Plus Brodie breaking out about then, plus Cane.
@duluth said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
Yes, that did seem to help
One year was it?
Because I was told to judge Tana after three years.. we're almost at three years now.. now I'm told Tana should get another 2 years added to his contract
The strange thing is I can't find a Blues fan that wants that
Yes and also Razor did it in his first year too!
@duluth said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
What changed? How fast did it change?
really fucking quick actually. And Facebook reminded me the other week, thanks to the memory functions. Rennie came on board, and the first week looked the fucking same as ever, ropey defense, shithouse set piece, headless play.
The next memory was two weeks later, and all of those things had turned around. The cornerstones of decent rugby appeared (after years of neglect), and it allowed our heads-up attack to flourish. And we won back to back comps.
@mariner4life said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
@duluth said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
What changed? How fast did it change?
really fucking quick actually. And Facebook reminded me the other week, thanks to the memory functions. Rennie came on board, and the first week looked the fucking same as ever, ropey defense, shithouse set piece, headless play.
The next memory was two weeks later, and all of those things had turned around. The cornerstones of decent rugby appeared (after years of neglect), and it allowed our heads-up attack to flourish. And we won back to back comps.
aaahhhh goood times
@hooroo said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
@duluth said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
What changed? How fast did it change?
New coach seemed to help, along with have a super AB coach to pull the strings too
I'm sure Auckland would look miles better with an All Black first five-eighth and Wayne Smith as assistant.
@gt12 said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
@hooroo said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
@duluth said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
What changed? How fast did it change?
New coach seemed to help, along with have a super AB coach to pull the strings too
And the recruitment of an 1st five totally suited to carving up at Super level. Plus Brodie breaking out about then, plus Cane.
They'd had Donald, who was adequate for the job, should the coach be good enough to get his head on the right space. We'd made the finals with him.
Foster's team were well coached, technically. He's taken that to the ABs. The players liked him.
They were poorly selected, particularly in that off-field stuff was ignored, so lazy and disruptive players stayed in the team. Rennie was ruthless in getting rid of anyone who wouldn't train 100%.
But the real issue was motivation. Foster's teams played well under no pressure, as noted above. When high in the competition they'd fold to lower teams consistently. The way they crumbled in the one final they got was exactly what they were like. I knew it would happen, so could not bear to watch the game, to save my blood pressure.
If Foster coaches the ABs, expect mental brittleness to reappear.
Rennie did inherit a team who were enjoying their rugby and were technically sound. The transformation of the head space was total though.
A great coach could turn the Blues around in a season, I don't doubt that.
:::
Spoiler Text
:::
@hooroo said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
@duluth said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
Yes, that did seem to help
One year was it?
Because I was told to judge Tana after three years.. we're almost at three years now.. now I'm told Tana should get another 2 years added to his contract
The strange thing is I can't find a Blues fan that wants that
Yes and also Razor did it in his first year too!
Boyd got the Canes a home final in his first year, then won the thing the next year. Fair bit of evidence to suggest a quality coach can make a big difference.
i think one of the big changes at the chiefs was attitude and culture.i remember reading an article that said how bad the players were at taking short cut at training etc.
5 yrs ago i dont think i would have been a big believer in how the culture of a team leads to success but the chiefs are a prime example of the difference it can make.
little bit off topic but it seems to be a major problem at the silver ferns at the moment to.
@no-quarter said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
@hooroo said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
@duluth said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
Yes, that did seem to help
One year was it?
Because I was told to judge Tana after three years.. we're almost at three years now.. now I'm told Tana should get another 2 years added to his contract
The strange thing is I can't find a Blues fan that wants that
Yes and also Razor did it in his first year too!
Boyd got the Canes a home final in his first year, then won the thing the next year. Fair bit of evidence to suggest a quality coach can make a big difference.
I think the evidence the coach makes a big difference is overwhelming.
I did a check and iirc anyone who won a Super Rugby title did it in their first three years, and for most the turn-around was immediately obvious. McKenzie at the Reds, the most dramatic.
Foster managed a final in his fifth? year, and the team was crap the next, showing it was fluke.
Even great coaches tended to get worse over time, rather than better. (I suspect they don't get worse, just that the opposition know what to expect, so the results slip a bit.)
There is zero chance, based on previous history, that Tana can turn the ship around.
The Chiefs kept hoping Foster would deliver, the Crusaders kept hoping Blackadder would. They didn't, and neither will Tana.
Was it JJ's 5th season when the Highlanders won it? He seems to be the odd one out. IIRC he did get them playing better fairly quickly but it took a few years for all the pieces to come together.
It's common to blame the lack of quality first fives on the Blues' fortunes. The accepted theory is you need a world class first five to win Super Rugby. I actually agree with the theory but would also add I didn't think Sopoaga was a World Class first five until all of a sudden he was. This came off the back of years of sticking around, development and most importantly good coaching.
Interesting take a couple of factors not considered.
The quality of non-Blues NZ teams change drastically. For example during Lam's 2010 tenure the Chiefs and Highlanders were bottom four on the table.
Umaga has the toughest job because the most damage has been done before him. A quality coach could have turned around things straight after Nucifora went sideways, but the tenures of Kirwan and Lam have done such damage to the culture and reputation of the club the task in front of Tana is harder than Lam who was at least handed a professional sporting team.
That doesn't excuse Umaga - he was handed the team in such poor condition that the bar of initial success was lower than it was for any of the others too, and he is struggling to make it.
@chester-draws said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
I did a check and iirc anyone who won a Super Rugby title did it in their first three years, and for most the turn-around was immediately obvious. McKenzie at the Reds, the most dramatic.
Smith's effort with the Crusaders was the most dramatic.
Taking teams to a title takes skill from the box no doubt, but almost every instance where a coach has overnight success with a franchise they were building off some very solid infrastructure. Huge difference graduating a team to champion from fringe finalist and cellar dweller.
Even McKenzie took over a side that had Eddie Jones fingerprints still on it.
@rotated said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
@chester-draws said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
I did a check and iirc anyone who won a Super Rugby title did it in their first three years, and for most the turn-around was immediately obvious. McKenzie at the Reds, the most dramatic.
Smith's effort with the Crusaders was the most dramatic.
Taking teams to a title takes skill from the box no doubt, but almost every instance where a coach has overnight success with a franchise they were building off some very solid infrastructure. Huge difference graduating a team to champion from fringe finalist and cellar dweller.
Even McKenzie took over a side that had Eddie Jones fingerprints still on it.
Wayne Smith is a dead set genius, but the initial showing of the Crusaders in the first year of Super Rugby is extremely misleading. They really, really didn't get their heads around the new franchise thing.
Looking at the squads, makes me think McKenzie pulled off a minor miracle. I think winning a championship with Quade Cooper is somewhat harder than with an Andrew Mehrtens steering the show.
What Smith did, long term, of course was much better -- because he could back it up, and then again.
@pukunui. Thanks for the correction. It was some time back.
@chester-draws said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
Wayne Smith is a dead set genius, but the initial showing of the Crusaders in the first year of Super Rugby is extremely misleading. They really, really didn't get their heads around the new franchise thing.
Looking at the squads, makes me think McKenzie pulled off a minor miracle. I think winning a championship with Quade Cooper is somewhat harder than with an Andrew Mehrtens steering the show.
True and the Canterbury infrastructure was a solid base to work from even if they were poor the first year out.
Reds title was a combination of the conference system helping them to a top seed and the travelling Crusaders. Strange year, but McKenzie did manage to get them playing good rugby the win over the Crusaders during the regular season was impressive.
