International coach of the year

[RoosTah]

Winner of the RWC = Winner of Coach of the year => Hansen takes it!!

But is it really? If you take over the coaching role of Mohammed Ali when he's already won everything and he continues to win everything, are you an awesome coach, or is he just an awesome boxer?
However, if you take a bloke who's a scrapper at best and pretty unorganised and get him on a winning run that sees him in the ring with THE champ, then you've truly proven that you're the difference.

 

[Crazy Horse]

If the Wallabies win the WC, then Cheika gets it. If not, the sentimental favorite Eddie Jones wins because of his work with the Brave Blossoms.

 

[nickdnz]

But is it really? If you take over the coaching role of Mohammed Ali when he's already won everything and he continues to win everything, are you an awesome coach, or is he just an awesome boxer?
However, if you take a bloke who's a scrapper at best and pretty unorganised and get him on a winning run that sees him in the ring with THE champ, then you've truly proven that you're the difference.

But as I explained - that simply doesn't work.

To start with: Hansen was part of Henry's coaching team.
Secondly: There are plenty of players who were either introduced by Hansen, or have played 90% of their rugby in Hansen's All Blacks.
Thirdly: Hansen's All Blacks play very different rugby from Henry's. As an example: under Henry's last four years the highest try scorers were Muliaina, Conrad Smith and Ma'a Nonu. Very few tries to the wingers. Very different story in how Hansen uses his backline.

 

[Bo Jandals]

Winner of the RWC = Winner of Coach of the year => Hansen takes it!!

At least Cheika finally said "All Blacks", he's finally come to the dark side.

Hansen all the way......Cheika just confirmed it by finally saying the name.

If we win, this crap about IRB/World rugby conspiracy theories having us in their back pocket has to stop because the IRB/World rugby would ideally prefer OZ to win to build the game globally but especially in OZ because of the lack of interest within Australia.

C'mon NZ, let's put this conspiracy theory to bed

 

[RoosTah]

But as I explained - that simply doesn't work.

To start with: Hansen was part of Henry's coaching team.
Secondly: There are plenty of players who were either introduced by Hansen, or have played 90% of their rugby in Hansen's All Blacks.
Thirdly: Hansen's All Blacks play very different rugby from Henry's. As an example: under Henry's last four years the highest try scorers were Muliaina, Conrad Smith and Ma'a Nonu. Very few tries to the wingers. Very different story in how Hansen uses his backline.

I think you're missing my point... I'm not saying he's not a good coach, just that he's come in and built off something already wildly successful. He hasn't had to take anything from the ground and build it back up; he's merely had to continue on what were incredibly solid foundations.

In coaching the true test has always been if you can take a team of also rans and make them champions. Taking a team of champions and having them continue to be champions is always ultimately less impressive.

 

[Bo Jandals]

But is it really? If you take over the coaching role of Mohammed Ali when he's already won everything and he continues to win everything, are you an awesome coach, or is he just an awesome boxer?
However, if you take a bloke who's a scrapper at best and pretty unorganised and get him on a winning run that sees him in the ring with THE champ, then you've truly proven that you're the difference.

Angelo Dundee for Ali as trainer in other words?

How about SBW with Mundine? Bad example bro.

Hurry up the final FFS.

 

[RoosTah]

But as I explained - that simply doesn't work.

To start with: Hansen was part of Henry's coaching team.
Secondly: There are plenty of players who were either introduced by Hansen, or have played 90% of their rugby in Hansen's All Blacks.
Thirdly: Hansen's All Blacks play very different rugby from Henry's. As an example: under Henry's last four years the highest try scorers were Muliaina, Conrad Smith and Ma'a Nonu. Very few tries to the wingers. Very different story in how Hansen uses his backline.

I think you're missing my point... I'm not saying he's not a good coach, just that he's come in and built off something already wildly successful. He hasn't had to take anything from the ground and build it back up; he's merely had to continue on what were incredibly solid foundations.

In coaching the true test has always been if you can take a team of also rans and make them champions. Taking a team of champions and having them continue to be champions is always ultimately less impressive.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

And the AB's at the GARDEN OF EDEN? The WB's didn't outclass NZ, the RC isn't that important one year out from the RWC but having said that, the AB's v WB's on neutral ground is a different kettle of fish.

On paper, I'd say Hansen from stats but in reality within a short stint as coach I'd be lying if I said Hansen was the coach of the year compared to Cheika. And Cheika is a pretty cool cat.

Cheika gets my vote

You're missing the point. The point is that Australia's performance increased dramatically since Cheika assumed.

 

[Bo Jandals]

You're missing the point. The point is that Australia's performance increased dramatically since Cheika assumed.

What did you think of Ted's impact during his stint in Argentina? It's not a pat on the back

 

[nickdnz]

I think you're missing my point... I'm not saying he's not a good coach, just that he's come in and built off something already wildly successful. He hasn't had to take anything from the ground and build it back up; he's merely had to continue on what were incredibly solid foundations.

In coaching the true test has always been if you can take a team of also rans and make them champions. Taking a team of champions and having them continue to be champions is always ultimately less impressive.

Right. But what you are actually saying is that no matter how well an All Black team performs, the coach can not get the deserved credit - because it was never shambolic before.

How about under Hansen - he took the All Blacks from a winning record of 85.4%. And improved on it by another 5%.

 

[ABs2011]

But is it really? If you take over the coaching role of Mohammed Ali when he's already won everything and he continues to win everything, are you an awesome coach, or is he just an awesome boxer?
However, if you take a bloke who's a scrapper at best and pretty unorganised and get him on a winning run that sees him in the ring with THE champ, then you've truly proven that you're the difference.

Yup, 100% it is.

Kiwis know more than anything that winning a RWC is not easy so if Hansen achieves that, despite him having an aweseom team, then that will be the biggest achievement in World Rugby this year. On top of that he is almost undefeated outside of the RWC in 2015 so that adds to his achievements.

The flip side to ur argument is that essentially u r saying an AB coach with a successful team cannot win coach of the year no matter what they achieve.

Dont get me wrong, I'm not downplaying Cheika's coaching. He has been great. But A near undefeated season + a RWC win?? That has to be the coach of the year!!

 

[RoosTah]

Right. But what you are actually saying is that no matter how well an All Black team performs, the coach can not get the deserved credit - because it was never shambolic before.

How about under Hansen - he took the All Blacks from a winning record of 85.4%. And improved on it by another 5%.

Short memory. Henry took over an All Blacks team that had severe culture problems, poor player attitudes and a less than stellar record in big games. HE changed all of that and rightly deserved his accolades. The All Blacks in 2003 were a team of talented players, but they weren't the most tactically astute of sides and the had a soft underbelly with plenty of poorly managed egos, and alcohol problems to boot by all accounts.

Fixing that up was a big job, and Henry did it marvelously and it was a credit to the NZRU that they could see that in spite of their shock 2007 RWC exit.

So it's not about it being the All Blacks - it's about the amount of work that was necessary to achieve what they have. I think you're talking this as some slight against the All Blacks, but it's not. It's just a simple statement of fact to say that it is more impressive from a coaching standpoint to take a team of underperformers and have them be contenders, rather than take a wildly successful team with few issues and continue that success.

Hansen may well be capable of replicating that elsewhere, but we don't know that yet. Everyone thought Deans was a genius too until he coached the Wallabies.

 

[Bo Jandals]

Short memory. Henry took over an All Blacks team that had severe culture problems, poor player attitudes and a less than stellar record in big games. HE changed all of that and rightly deserved his accolades. The All Blacks in 2003 were a team of talented players, but they weren't the most tactically astute of sides and the had a soft underbelly with plenty of poorly managed egos, and alcohol problems to boot by all accounts.

Fixing that up was a big job, and Henry did it marvelously and it was a credit to the NZRU that they could see that in spite of their shock 2007 RWC exit.

So it's not about it being the All Blacks - it's about the amount of work that was necessary to achieve what they have. I think you're talking this as some slight against the All Blacks, but it's not. It's just a simple statement of fact to say that it is more impressive from a coaching standpoint to take a team of underperformers and have them be contenders, rather than take a wildly successful team with few issues and continue that success.

Hansen may well be capable of replicating that elsewhere, but we don't know that yet. Everyone thought Deans was a genius too until he coached the Wallabies.

"So it's not about it being the All Blacks - it's about the amount of work that was necessary to achieve what they have. I think you're talking this as some slight against the All Blacks"

Nah mate, it's got nothing to do with who wins or not, it's how you play the game except for off course Ritchie.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Whoever wins the RWC gets my backing.

 

[ABs2011]

@sanzar Again, the problem with your argument is that you are effectively saying Hansen is excluded from consideration for this award because he inherited a good team. I'd be both suprised and dissapointed if that was the case.

While I havent seen how the award is judged I would assume a big chunk of it is about excellence! A near perfect international season including a RWC win would be exactly that.

There is a reason why in the history of the awards in an RWC year both the team and coach of the year has gone to the RWC champions!!

 

[RoosTah]

@ABs2011, I think we're going to have to just agree to disagree here. My fundamental point wasn't that Hansen wasn't a good coach, just that it's hard to gauge just how good he is when he took over a side that was already the best in the world. The true test of a great coach is (and always has been) being able to take a side that aren't so great and making them great. The 2003 All Blacks weren't worthy of the mythology surrounding them, but the creature Henry turned them into certainly were.

If he gets the nod, I won't have a problem with it really, but I don't think we'll know how good he really is until he's coached a side that aren't superstars and already utterly dominant.

 

[The Jones Boy]

It's important to remember two elements where Hansen is concerned.
Coaching the All Blacks in recent years has been more of a group involvement with a set leader (Hansen) as it was when Henry set the organisation up and Hansen was part of that group. His involvement stems back a long way.
Secondly, never ever discount the constant pressure of being the AB coach.
Everyone in NZ has an opinion on the team and it's results.
Its higher profile than the PM

 

[j'nuh]

Well, it's a two-horse race. Cheika and Jones. With Cheika, I can't think of a team that has improved so much within a year than Australia have in the last year. On the other hand, Japan's win against South Africa is the biggest one-off achievement in rugby.

I'm going to go with Cheika because he's shown longevity. Japan did back-up their win against South Africa with two more wins and they were unlucky not to go through to the next round, but the thumping by Scotland takes a bit of the sheen away.

 

[nickdnz]

Short memory. Henry took over an All Blacks team that had severe culture problems, poor player attitudes and a less than stellar record in big games. HE changed all of that and rightly deserved his accolades. The All Blacks in 2003 were a team of talented players, but they weren't the most tactically astute of sides and the had a soft underbelly with plenty of poorly managed egos, and alcohol problems to boot by all accounts.

Fixing that up was a big job, and Henry did it marvelously and it was a credit to the NZRU that they could see that in spite of their shock 2007 RWC exit.

So it's not about it being the All Blacks - it's about the amount of work that was necessary to achieve what they have. I think you're talking this as some slight against the All Blacks, but it's not. It's just a simple statement of fact to say that it is more impressive from a coaching standpoint to take a team of underperformers and have them be contenders, rather than take a wildly successful team with few issues and continue that success.

Hansen may well be capable of replicating that elsewhere, but we don't know that yet. Everyone thought Deans was a genius too until he coached the Wallabies.

If you say so, but John Mitchell's coaching record was 83.9% over his 28 tests in charge, only 2% lower than Graham Henry's. So in essence Steve Hansen has still markedly improved the All Blacks more than Henry had under Mitchell. So I still call BS.

 

[The Jones Boy]

I'm going to go with Cheika ... but the thumping by Scotland takes a bit of the sheen away.

I corrected that for you... :lol: