Somehow in the business of appointing the next All Blacks coach, conservative became a bad word.
And somehow conservative became the word tagged to Ian Foster, as if having been with the All Blacks for eight years made him somewhat stale and perhaps jaded.
So, not surprisingly, confirmation Foster has been made head coach for the next two years came with a predictable groan from a social media landscape that seems to have been accepted as the only true voice of the people.
Foster was painted as a vote for predictability and confirmation of a stale, pale mind-set that has earned New Zealand Rugby unfavourable comparisons with the Kremlin.
• Rugby: All Blacks coach Ian Foster set to surprise with choice of assistants
• Rugby: 10 things to know about new All Blacks coach Ian Foster
• Rugby live updates: Ian Foster confirmed as new All Blacks coach on a two-year deal
• Premium - Rugby: Dylan Cleaver - Ian Foster the perfect feel-nothing appointment as All Blacks head coach
The Twitter-sphere appears certain that a risk-averse group has made a risk-averse choice in selecting Foster ahead of the enigmatic and wonderfully unorthodox Scott Robertson.
That seems to be the consensus: a near unanimous sense of an opportunity lost to radicalise the approach of the national team by putting them under the charge of a character who is truly devoid of any need to conform.
But All Blacks coaching appointments are always reduced to massively simplistic and unrealistic battle lines by those tasked with making sense of what the options are without really knowing.
It never was Foster safe, Robertson radical. It never was the case that Foster was the conservative choice, or at least it if it was, conservative shouldn't be seen to carry negative undertones or be deemed a quality that will inhibit and restrict the vision of the All Blacks.
Having detailed, working knowledge of the All Blacks' inner sanctum, as Foster has, is not a bad thing. Understanding the nuances of test rugby, the toll it takes on the players mentally and physically and the sorts of pressures that can be exerted and from whence they can come, is not a bad thing either.
To say it is conservative to be attracted by those qualities is a curious interpretation of what matters in test football. It is natural and right to be attracted to those qualities – they have served the All Blacks well over a long, period and one loss to England doesn't support the widely held hunch that experience is no longer going to serve its purpose.
It also fails to understand that it could just as easily be said that it would have been reckless for the appointment committee to have ignored them.
Look what happened when England went a little radical in 2012 and appointed a head coach with no test experience. They were dumped out of their own World Cup in the pool stages.
South Africa went for a test rookie in 2016 in Allister Coetzee and he didn't quite make it to the end of 2017. His tenure included a 57-0 thumping by the All Blacks and a loss to Italy.
The narrative in this appointment process has always been twisted and inaccurate, skewed against Foster who has been branded the establishment figure and the establishment one in dire need of a shake-up.
Twisted because the deeper implication that Foster will bring more of the same: that he will be Steve Hansen in all but name espousing the same style of rugby with the same players.
That's been the fallacy of the debate these past months – Foster brings knowledge of the old ways but a desire to reinvent them.
He will have been influenced by what he learned under Hansen but not compelled to replicate every aspect.
His pitch to the board promised to take the best of the old regime and add his own, distinct flavour to things.
He jumped in early after being unveiled to say that he knows the team has to evolve and grow if it to succeed and that, just as importantly, he needs to reinvent himself to a public that has only known him in an All Blacks' context as an assistant.
For those who remain sceptical about the volume of change or the ability of Foster to successfully step up, think back to 2011 and the lingering doubts that existed about Hansen.
He was a vote for conservatism, too, and he came into the role with the same public concerns.
But he didn't bring more of the same. He was not a Graham Henry clone and the All Blacks didn't stand still. They evolved and they became better and while no one can be sure what will happen under Foster in the next two years, he deserves at least to start his tenure seen for what he is.
Foster is an agent for change as much as he is a continuation of the last eight years.