I think Baze has shown he can be trusted to look after this team while NZF take the next 6 months to confirm a permanent coach. They've already said he's not the person for the job. It's a long way from that to suddenly being the best option based on one good performance. I doubt NZF will be suckered by this. I don't share Simon Elliott's apparent optimism.
Why?
1. China are not particularly strong; much weaker than us. We should be beating them.
2. That first game was dire. Almost a copy of Hay-ball. Improvements from Hay-ball were limited (the higher defensive line and no DM in front of a back 5).
3. Illogical reasoning given for that poor performance; followed by irrational PR following the poor performance. Saying travel is a factor for an international match, then saying they were playing in an ambitious manner, shows absurd naivity. It would have been refreshing and possibily even career advancing for Bazeley to say that this performance was not up to his standards and he expects better in the second match. Instead we were told it was a good, attacking performance. 'Nothing to see here folks', 'we have no standards'
4. Commentators waxing lyrical about the 'quality' of the coaching assistants. There's no doubting their collective footballing abilities, but what do we know about their coaching abilities? I think bringing in three rookie coaches is a soft move. At this level, you need a good mix, including at least one individual with proven technical expertise. This isn't directed at the individuals, but the mix. For all I know, this expertise might exist among this group. I'd be interested to see what others think / know
This was a good week. We're moving forward. We've gone from Hudson, to Hay (improvement) to Baze (improvement). But our off the field still has work to do to catch up to the quality of our playing pool.
Why?
1. China are not particularly strong; much weaker than us. We should be beating them.
2. That first game was dire. Almost a copy of Hay-ball. Improvements from Hay-ball were limited (the higher defensive line and no DM in front of a back 5).
3. Illogical reasoning given for that poor performance; followed by irrational PR following the poor performance. Saying travel is a factor for an international match, then saying they were playing in an ambitious manner, shows absurd naivity. It would have been refreshing and possibily even career advancing for Bazeley to say that this performance was not up to his standards and he expects better in the second match. Instead we were told it was a good, attacking performance. 'Nothing to see here folks', 'we have no standards'
4. Commentators waxing lyrical about the 'quality' of the coaching assistants. There's no doubting their collective footballing abilities, but what do we know about their coaching abilities? I think bringing in three rookie coaches is a soft move. At this level, you need a good mix, including at least one individual with proven technical expertise. This isn't directed at the individuals, but the mix. For all I know, this expertise might exist among this group. I'd be interested to see what others think / know
This was a good week. We're moving forward. We've gone from Hudson, to Hay (improvement) to Baze (improvement). But our off the field still has work to do to catch up to the quality of our playing pool.