: Mon Jul 07, 2008 2:24 pm  

Eccleshill Rhino wrote:

Isn't that these boards are all about? As for McClennan his mistakes for me are selection rather than game time errors. If he selects the right side the rest will look after itself.

Playing Ellis in the centre dosn't work - why not play JJB he is quicker and more dynamic also swop Donald to the other side that would even up the strengths. Finally play two nines - give Kaye an extended run and see what that brings.

You just get worse matey !

Swop Donald to the other side ? Why ? What difference would that make ? Only make the problem move to the other wing FFS

Play JJB in the Centre ? Now that must be the most stupid thing even you have posted How on earth you dare give an opinion about Coaching, well good job you have never Coached anyone

Re: Understanding of thread : Mon Jul 07, 2008 2:29 pm  

G1 wrote:

That's fine by me. I'd actively encourage it. Just as I did with our greatest ever coach at a similar stage last year.

I am encouraged so many of you fekkwitts appear to have learned your lesson.

Indeed but you are aiming your latest fishing rod in the wrong direction Gareth, Smith delivered and failed in equal measure, thats life, thats sport.

Interestingly enough the fact that Smith is (in your words) the most successful coach ever in the history of Leeds tells you everything you need to know about the club rather than Smith himself.

How did Smith do at Huddersfield with just his tactical ability to fall back on?

Re: Understanding of thread : Mon Jul 07, 2008 2:44 pm  

Richie Ramrod wrote:

Indeed but you are aiming your latest fishing rod in the wrong direction Gareth, Smith delivered and failed in equal measure, thats life, thats sport.

Interestingly enough the fact that Smith is (in your words) the most successful coach ever in the history of Leeds tells you everything you need to know about the club rather than Smith himself.

Your first statement contradicts your second. I agree with the second. The fact that Smith delivered two championships in four seasons at Leeds means that he delivered far, far more than he failed.

How did Smith do at Huddersfield with just his tactical ability to fall back on?

very well actually. It was how far he had them playing above their abilities that prompted Hetherington to go for him.

: Tue Jul 08, 2008 9:55 am  

What I don't quite understand is people's inconsistency in their approach to the competitive nature of SL.

IMO in 2005 the competition just wasn't as strong as it is now.

The salary cap, some good business dealings, some new coaches, some young blood, some forward thinking in terms of franchises and such like and all of a sudden, we have the Dragons in third spot pushing Leeds and Saints. You have Castleford who are capable of beating anyone on their day, Wakefield the same. Hull KR who have been a banana skin for a lot of teams. A resurgent Quins side and Huddersfield , Wigan and Warrington fluctuating from the sublime to the ridiculous, so you never know which team you're facing. Add an "odd"Bradford side into the mix with Hull and you have a league where no one team can take ANY result for granted.

Isn't this what we wanted? An exciting, unpredictable league with a higher standard of overall play.

Given that that's what we wanted, it seems odd that we're then surprised that we are not seeing one side dominate.

Is it possible that it's not Leeds underperforming, or even other teams punching above their weight to beat leeds. But just that other teams are a lot better than they were 3 years ago?

[Ex-Swarcliffe Rhino]

: Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:08 am  

loinertillidie wrote:

What I don't quite understand is people's inconsistency in their approach to the competitive nature of SL.

IMO in 2005 the competition just wasn't as strong as it is now.

The salary cap, some good business dealings, some new coaches, some young blood, some forward thinking in terms of franchises and such like and all of a sudden, we have the Dragons in third spot pushing Leeds and Saints. You have Castleford who are capable of beating anyone on their day, Wakefield the same. Hull KR who have been a banana skin for a lot of teams. A resurgent Quins side and Huddersfield , Wigan and Warrington fluctuating from the sublime to the ridiculous, so you never know which team you're facing. Add an "odd"Bradford side into the mix with Hull and you have a league where no one team can take ANY result for granted.



Isn't this what we wanted? An exciting, unpredictable league with a higher standard of overall play.
Given that that's what we wanted, it seems odd that we're then surprised that we are not seeing one side dominate.

Is it possible that it's not Leeds underperforming, or even other teams punching above their weight to beat leeds. But just that other teams are a lot better than they were 3 years ago?

yes

Re: Understanding of thread : Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:17 am  

Richie Ramrod wrote:

How did Smith do at Huddersfield with just his tactical ability to fall back on?

They finished 10th in super league, Before Smith when had they last finished 10th or above?

Re: Understanding of thread : Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:14 am  

Tony Soprano wrote:

They finished 10th in super league, Before Smith when had they last finished 10th or above?

They finished 12th (bottom) in 2000 under John Kear, who was subsequently sacked, and then appointed Tony Smith for 2001 who also guided them to 12th and relegation from Superleague.

In the NFP the following year under Tony Smith they were unbeaten (although they were the only full time side).

In 2003 Huddersfield finished 10th as you rightly say, a position they also occupied when the appointment as Leeds coach was announced.

After Tony Smith's departure they've gone on to finish 7th, 8th, 9th and 5th.

: Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:19 am  

loinertillidie wrote:

What I don't quite understand is people's inconsistency in their approach to the competitive nature of SL.

IMO in 2005 the competition just wasn't as strong as it is now.

The salary cap, some good business dealings, some new coaches, some young blood, some forward thinking in terms of franchises and such like and all of a sudden, we have the Dragons in third spot pushing Leeds and Saints. You have Castleford who are capable of beating anyone on their day, Wakefield the same. Hull KR who have been a banana skin for a lot of teams. A resurgent Quins side and Huddersfield , Wigan and Warrington fluctuating from the sublime to the ridiculous, so you never know which team you're facing. Add an "odd"Bradford side into the mix with Hull and you have a league where no one team can take ANY result for granted.

Isn't this what we wanted? An exciting, unpredictable league with a higher standard of overall play.

Given that that's what we wanted, it seems odd that we're then surprised that we are not seeing one side dominate.

Is it possible that it's not Leeds underperforming, or even other teams punching above their weight to beat leeds. But just that other teams are a lot better than they were 3 years ago?

Great post and completely spot on, except for bit about Cas.

: Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:21 am  

loinertillidie wrote:

What I don't quite understand is people's inconsistency in their approach to the competitive nature of SL.

IMO in 2005 the competition just wasn't as strong as it is now.

The salary cap, some good business dealings, some new coaches, some young blood, some forward thinking in terms of franchises and such like and all of a sudden, we have the Dragons in third spot pushing Leeds and Saints. You have Castleford who are capable of beating anyone on their day, Wakefield the same. Hull KR who have been a banana skin for a lot of teams. A resurgent Quins side and Huddersfield , Wigan and Warrington fluctuating from the sublime to the ridiculous, so you never know which team you're facing. Add an "odd"Bradford side into the mix with Hull and you have a league where no one team can take ANY result for granted.

Isn't this what we wanted? An exciting, unpredictable league with a higher standard of overall play.

Given that that's what we wanted, it seems odd that we're then surprised that we are not seeing one side dominate.

Is it possible that it's not Leeds underperforming, or even other teams punching above their weight to beat leeds. But just that other teams are a lot better than they were 3 years ago?

Can't argue with that.

Re: Understanding of thread : Tue Jul 08, 2008 11:28 am  

Aladdin Sane wrote:

They finished 12th (bottom) in 2000 under John Kear, who was subsequently sacked, and then appointed Tony Smith for 2001 who also guided them to 12th and relegation from Superleague.

In the NFP the following year under Tony Smith they were unbeaten (although they were the only full time side).

In 2003 Huddersfield finished 10th as you rightly say, a position they also occupied when the appointment as Leeds coach was announced.

After Tony Smith's departure they've gone on to finish 7th, 8th, 9th and 5th.

Thanks for not answering my question