@rancid-schnitzel said in Blues win percentage against NZ teams:
To give him his due, I think Hammett stamped out some bad habits and Boyd has benefited from this. But the problem is that in doing so he threw the baby out with the bathwater. He was also tactically inept and the quality of rugby his team played was terrible. No way would a Hammett coached team be playing in the manner the Canes have played for the past 4 years.
There are a number of different factors that go into a successful rugby team. You can have them training up a storm and buying into the coach's vision, but that doesn't mean anything if the tactics or game plan are crap. On the flip side you can have awesome players and tactics, but if the players are lazy and unfit then you won't succeed.
The Blues have heaps of talent but dont have any brains or leadership on the park and subsequently play dumb rugby. The selections are also somewhat dubious. IIRC the Highlanders had similar issues regarding leadership and brains during their tough run. They didn't necessarily have the Blues talent but shit they played some gash rugby.
Not sure how the Blues turn that around. There is zero leadership at the revolving 10 position for instance and the forwards aren't much better.
Yeah, I'm willing to give Hammett his dues as a bit of a hit-man that made some pretty significant changes to the culture which we have benefited from. But as you say, he was severely limited as a head coach and the tactics under his reign were laughably bad. Most of that is probably due to a lack of experience in the role (I.E. absolutely none). I wouldn't write him off in the future as he learns his trade, but he was not up to the job at that time.
You could say similar things about Tana right now TBH (not the hit-man part). He's out of his depth at Super level - an assistant role would have benefited him at this time. Head coach is a seriously tough gig, throwing people into the role with little experience at SR level is pretty brainless stuff.
.
