• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Fekitoa - Blues didn't support me

I'm really happy for Fekitoa. I remember making a comment on this forum when Fekitoa was not named for the Blues, wondering why the heck not!! He has been a gun for the Highlanders this year. I hope he kicks on now as well!

It makes you wonder what on earth is going on at the Blues. Reminds me a lot of the Hurricanes. Seems to me there is just a serous lack of professionalism. Maybe they need to hit rock bottom before they have a serious cleanout of Blues management.
 
Blues' player management seems questionable, remember the Gareth Anscombe thing right after Kirwan joined.
Not a fan of Kirwan, and I think he has been given a bit more leniency than Pat Lam was.
 
Blues' player management seems questionable, remember the Gareth Anscombe thing right after Kirwan joined.
Not a fan of Kirwan, and I think he has been given a bit more leniency than Pat Lam was.

Yep, especially with our crisis at 10 ...

One thing that bugs me, is that I have been assuming that these players were talented players, who were mis-handled and as such left. Which would be bad. However, what if the Blues structure was just not displaying / getting the most of the obvious talent these two players had? So although JK handled it badly, he simply didn't see or the players weren't able to showcase their qualities. That is worse in my opinion. We can NOT be letting home grown quality like that walk out the door, especially when their big mantra is trying to bring pride back to the jersey.
 
We had that issue with Plumtree. If a player didn't seem exceptional from the start, we sent them away. Sithole is a prime example of this; look at him once the coaches put some confidence into him.
 
Really worrying to read. Sounds like a negative culture is developing there, especially surrounding new players. Announcing to the media that one of your players is 'not ready' or 'new to the game' or 'not good enough' must be awful for their confidence and self belief.
 
Same with Nathan Hughes.
Of course predictably people will just blame JK but i think the problem runs deeper
 
Really worrying to read. Sounds like a negative culture is developing there, especially surrounding new players. Announcing to the media that one of your players is 'not ready' or 'new to the game' or 'not good enough' must be awful for their confidence and self belief.

'Not ready' or 'new to the game' is not a slant on someones ability just a status update for their progress, albeit worded very poorly and not the best way to inspire.

'No good enough' is clearly a poor choice of words and is normally reserved for one on one meetings and not to be advertised to the press.

You wonder sometimes if the NZRU should put coaches through a marketing course to help them better present to the public.
 
Same with Nathan Hughes.
Of course predictably people will just blame JK but i think the problem runs deeper

I think it is a bit harsh to blame Kirwan for not signing Hughes. Hughes was hardly a standout for Auckland during the ITM Cup in 2012 - he only started one match, playing the rest of the games off the bench. He did nothing to suggest he should be in (or even near) the Blues squad for 2013 - I can't recall a single person suggesting he should be playing Super Rugby.....
 
The problem certainly runs deeper (than JK). People that are putting all the blame on JK either have a poor memory or limited understanding of the franchise. There are some constants over the last 3 seasons and JK is not one of them so for starters that should tell you something.

It is a real bugger for NZ rugby as well. A strong Blues franchise can only be good for NZ rugby. A lot of talent up their going to waste from what I can see.
 
It is a real bugger for NZ rugby as well. A strong Blues franchise can only be good for NZ rugby. A lot of talent up their going to waste from what I can see.

This is so true, we need every franchise to be performing if we want to develop talent and hold onto the world cup in 2015.
 
Yeah I'm not in the camp to put all this on JK, he is only one man. Yes, his man management has come under scrutiny and quite rightly, the job of a head coach is to keep talented players at the club and combine a lot of egos into a cohesive unit. If there is one word NOT to describe the Blues, cohesive would be high up the list.

This is definatley showing some concerns for Auckland rugby with talent evaluation and development, just look at North Harbour ... actually don't its too painful ;-)

In the long run this might be a good thing, so long as the answer isn't just 'fire JK and bring in the next guy'. Whoever is in charge needs to have the balls to stand up and call out problems at all levels of the club.
 
This is so true, we need every franchise to be performing if we want to develop talent and hold onto the world cup in 2015.

Particularly the big ones though (Crusaders and Blues) simply because if they are not, relatively speaking, we lose a lot more talent.
 
'Not ready' or 'new to the game' is not a slant on someones ability just a status update for their progress, albeit worded very poorly and not the best way to inspire.

'No good enough' is clearly a poor choice of words and is normally reserved for one on one meetings and not to be advertised to the press.

You wonder sometimes if the NZRU should put coaches through a marketing course to help them better present to the public.

Yea fair enough it's not as if the Blues are struggling for explosive back 5 forwards either
 
I think it is a bit harsh to blame Kirwan for not signing Hughes. Hughes was hardly a standout for Auckland during the ITM Cup in 2012 - he only started one match, playing the rest of the games off the bench. He did nothing to suggest he should be in (or even near) the Blues squad for 2013 - I can't recall a single person suggesting he should be playing Super Rugby.....

I hear for very reputable sources that Hughes was his own worst enemy at Club level in Auckland.
Greedy, solipcistic and disloyal.
 
Does anyone know how long Fekitoa is contracted to the Highlanders for? ... it's long been a fact of life that talented players are going to seize opportunities with other super rugby franchises, if they can't get the opportunity at their home franchise ... what I don't like is what used to happen, where a player is given the opportunity at another franchise, and then the next year, is back playing for their home franchise.

Players moving to other franchises is good for NZ rugby as a whole, as more of the best players get to play, and sides are more even/competitive.

I don't see that the Blues are significantly under performing compared to the other NZ teams either ... the Chiefs are probably the best this year, but even they can get beaten - all of the other sides can and do beat each other.

As a final comment, how do you measure whether all of the franchises are "performing" or not? ... you can't really go by the results/Super Rugby points log, as the current format of the competition is skewed to provide teams from all of the countries in the finals ... in terms of the RWC/All Blacks, it really doesn't matter which franchises the best players are playing for, or which team is the strongest, just so long as the best players get the game time they need.
 
Does anyone know how long Fekitoa is contracted to the Highlanders for? ... it's long been a fact of life that talented players are going to seize opportunities with other super rugby franchises, if they can't get the opportunity at their home franchise ... what I don't like is what used to happen, where a player is given the opportunity at another franchise, and then the next year, is back playing for their home franchise.

Players moving to other franchises is good for NZ rugby as a whole, as more of the best players get to play, and sides are more even/competitive.

I don't see that the Blues are significantly under performing compared to the other NZ teams either ... the Chiefs are probably the best this year, but even they can get beaten - all of the other sides can and do beat each other.

As a final comment, how do you measure whether all of the franchises are "performing" or not? ... you can't really go by the results/Super Rugby points log, as the current format of the competition is skewed to provide teams from all of the countries in the finals ... in terms of the RWC/All Blacks, it really doesn't matter which franchises the best players are playing for, or which team is the strongest, just so long as the best players get the game time they need.

To start with the Blues are last in the NZ conference so I'd say that's a pretty good place to start when comparing their performance to the rest of the NZ teams. That being said, in defense of the Blues I guess one could argue they are 2 and 2 v NZ teams so maybe a case could be made they are middle of the road? Doubt it though......

The more subjective way I try and get a handle on things is to look at the catchment area and the squad. The Blues have the biggest catchment area, so in theory they have an advantage there. Their squad has a great deal of experience and current ABs:

In the forwards you have: Mealamu, Woodcock, Faumauina, Donnelly, Kaino, Braid, and Luatua (all past or present ABs, ex Braid who really deserves to have been one by now)
In the Backs: Weepu, Nonu, Saili, Halai, and Piutau

For me that is the basis of a team that should easily be winning more games than they lose.

The final point that should really be made is I only think you need to watch a team play to see if they are underperforming. On occasion the Blues have looked OK to good this year but most of the time they have looked poor and at times they simply look plain awful. There is something seriously wrong with this team, the franchise, the coaching, the spirit in the team. The Benji story, if you read between the lines, is a pretty good indication that there is something quite wrong at the Blues. (and of course Fekitoa's non-inclusion and subsequent stories coming out of that decision is another example - sorry not sure how long the Highlanders have got him for)

All that noted, I think it is fair to conclude that the Blues are not just underperforming, but are significantly underperforming, and have done for a few years now.

I hope things improve, but I wouldn't be holding my breath.
 
Last edited:
To start with the Blues are last in the NZ conference so I'd say that's a pretty good place to start when comparing their performance to the rest of the NZ teams. That being said, in defense of the Blues I guess one could argue they are 2 and 2 v NZ teams so maybe a case could be made they are middle of the road? Doubt it though......

The more subjective way I try and get a handle on things is to look at the catchment area and the squad. The Blues have the biggest catchment area, so in theory they have an advantage there. Their squad has a great deal of experience and current ABs:

In the forwards you have: Mealamu, Woodcock, Faumauina, Donnelly, Kaino, Braid, and Luatua (all past or present ABs, ex Braid who really deserves to have been one by now)
In the Backs: Weepu, Nonu, Saili, Halai, and Piutau

For me that is the basis of a team that should easily be winning more games than they lose.

The final point that should really be made is I only think you need to watch a team play to see if they are underperforming. On occasion the Blues have looked OK to good this year but most of the time they have looked poor and at times they simply look plain awful. There is something seriously wrong with this team, the franchise, the coaching, the spirit in the team. The Benji story, if you read between the lines, is a pretty good indication that there is something quite wrong at the Blues. (and of course Fekitoa's non-inclusion and subsequent stories coming out of that decision is another example - sorry not sure how long the Highlanders have got him for)

All that noted, I think it is fair to conclude that the Blues are not just underperforming, but are significantly underperforming, and have done for a few years now.

I hope things improve, but I wouldn't be holding my breath.

I would certainly accept most of what you say, if the whole "we have first dibs on player x because he's from our catchment" still applied, but the ability for any franchise to offer contracts to any player, makes the catchment size of any franchise, less relevant.

As for the number of All Blacks in the squad, I would say that with the exception of the Highlanders and possibly the Chiefs, the number of current or ex-All Blacks are pretty evenly spread, so it could be argued that the Crusaders and the Hurricanes should also be winning most of their games, but unfortunately, as the New Zealand teams play each other twice, and everyone else once, it makes it statistically unlikely that they all can do that ... perhaps that's where the lack of consistent form lies, as the All Black players aim to hit form for the test season, not the start of the super rugby season.

As for the Blues underperforming, I don't think it's fair to say that they are significantly under performing compared to the other NZ teams, when there was only a six point difference on the NZ conference table between first and last.

With regard to Fekitoa, the Blues don't seem to be too badly off for Centres and Outside backs, and you can't retain them all ... better that he goes to another NZ franchise where he can get the game time, than to either sit on the bench and receive limited game time at the Blues, or worse, head of to Australia, where he'd more than likely appear in a Wallaby jersey IMO.

I don't really have an answer to the whole Benji thing, I guess maybe Kirwan and co saw how SBW and Folau have gone (they took time to adapt too), and thought he was worth a punt ... I personally would have offered him a Seven's contract, and got him to learn the game that way ... maybe combine it with some ITM cup experience for the fifteens experience.

In conclussion, I agree that the Blues could do better, but they certainly aren't the side that couldn't buy a win of a couple of years ago ... I'm certainly not saying that Kirwan is the answer, or that there is or isn't discontent in the Blues camp (how would I know), but the coaching staff are relatively new, and deserve the chances (like the players) that contracts provide, to prove themselves
 
Hi Shaggy,

Yup you make some fair points although it doesnt change my stance on the Blues that they are, and have been significantly under performing for three seasons now. Yes, the player retention situation has changed but the the size of the catchment area should still be an advantage. You get the first chance to develop players, to build relationships with them, and to effectively lock them in for the future. If players have history in an area, if they feel they are treated well there, if they feel they have a future there, if they feel respected they will tend not to move. Obviously bigger catchment area, all else equal, should equal more talented players and the Blues should be able to capitalize on that. The other advantage the Blues have is they are based in NZs biggest city. Big cities for most pro athletes is a drawcard. Typically means more money, not from the player contract but from extra endorsements etc. Finally, pro athletes tend to have egos, love the fast life etc. Big cities offer that and Auckland is pretty much the only big city in NZ. Ever wonder why the Warriors really struggle to attract good players? Part of the reason is that Auckland is considered a bum place to live compared to the bright lights of OZ. Same argument can be used in favour of Auck vs the rest of NZ!

Anyway, we could go round and round debating this. I am confident Auck has both a geographical and population based advantage over other clubs in NZ but clearly they are not turning this into on field results.

The other point I'd quickly makes is the the Blues catchment area has failed to get their act together for a long time from grass roots up. Have a yarn to people up there involved in Rugby. People are not happy. One could argue that the Blues failings originate at the lower levels of rugby.

Lastly, its not just about wins and losses right, its about the way you win and the way you lose. That game against the Canes was simply awful, as has been many of the Blues games this season. That alone should speak to their performance.

At the end of the day bro. 2012 Blues finished 12 of 15 - last year 10 of 15 - this year? remains to be seen aye? But my benchmark for the Blues is whether they make the playoffs or not. JK is into his second year, has a good squad, lots of experience, and really should be making the playoffs this year. As you say they certainly arent the side that couldnt buy a win a couple of years ago, but is that good enough? They need to be making the playoffs IMO - end of story.
 
Last edited:
Hi Shaggy,

Yup you make some fair points although it doesnt change my stance on the Blues that they are, and have been significantly under performing for three seasons now. Yes, the player retention situation has changed but the the size of the catchment area should still be an advantage. You get the first chance to develop players, to build relationships with them, and to effectively lock them in for the future. If players have history in an area, if they feel they are treated well there, if they feel they have a future there, if they feel respected they will tend not to move. Obviously bigger catchment area, all else equal, should equal more talented players and the Blues should be able to capitalize on that. The other advantage the Blues have is they are based in NZs biggest city. Big cities for most pro athletes is a drawcard. Typically means more money, not from the player contract but from extra endorsements etc. Finally, pro athletes tend to have egos, love the fast life etc. Big cities offer that and Auckland is pretty much the only big city in NZ. Ever wonder why the Warriors really struggle to attract good players? Part of the reason is that Auckland is considered a bum place to live compared to the bright lights of OZ. Same argument can be used in favour of Auck vs the rest of NZ!

Anyway, we could go round and round debating this. I am confident Auck has both a geographical and population based advantage over other clubs in NZ but clearly they are not turning this into on field results.

The other point I'd quickly makes is the the Blues catchment area has failed to get their act together for a long time from grass roots up. Have a yarn to people up there involved in Rugby. People are not happy. One could argue that the Blues failings originate at the lower levels of rugby.

Lastly, its not just about wins and losses right, its about the way you win and the way you lose. That game against the Canes was simply awful, as has been many of the Blues games this season. That alone should speak to their performance.

At the end of the day bro. 2012 Blues finished 12 of 15 - last year 10 of 15 - this year? remains to be seen aye? But my benchmark for the Blues is whether they make the playoffs or not. JK is into his second year, has a good squad, lots of experience, and really should be making the playoffs this year. As you say they certainly arent the side that couldnt buy a win a couple of years ago, but is that good enough? They need to be making the playoffs IMO - end of story.

All fair points, I can see I'm not going to turn you to my point of view :D ... so I guess we can agree to disagree on a few key points, I'm certainly not in a position (geographically) to talk to anyone at the grass roots level in the Blues catchment area, but I'd imagine they are under the pump from Rugby League scouts, ARU franchises, other NZ franchises, and European and Japanese club sides, when it comes to retaining the players in their catchment (so it's amazing they retain as many players as they do).

I totally agree with your point about most players wanting to play for the team that they have done all of their development in, it's a natural trait for most of to remain loyal, and to be proud of where we came from, but, unfortunately, no catchment can retain all it's players, nor can ALL of the players expect that they are going to have the same opportunities at home, than what they'll get elsewhere. As the playing life of a professional player is relatively short, many may have to look else where to fulfill their potential/careers.

The Blues have the potential to be a great side, and I agree that they need to make the playoffs at some stage, but whether it's reasonable to expect a team to make the playoffs in the second year of a coach's contract, given where they were a couple years ago, is another matter.

I guess I'm a loyal person myself (sometimes too loyal, but that's another story), and it kinda gets to me when people start sharpening the axes and calling for coach's head so early their tenure ... if not making the play offs is the criteria for making a change, then, at the very best, only three of the NZ franchises can make the top six, meaning that at least two of five NZ franchises would be replacing the coaching staff each year ... If I was a coach, I'd be looking for a job outside of NZ pretty quickly.

As a final point, I can't pretend to know if the reason the Blues are so inconsistent is due to bad coaching, bad culture, poor recruitment/bad decisions on who they should retain - all of those things could be true, but my best guess is that they are just playing in a competitive conference and are struggling for wins just like the other four sides.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Top