The difference at Leeds is we already had players who had done it all, had lost the hunger, and were much older than the team Maguire took on.
Done it all .... really?
The example of Maguire merely shows the value of getting the number one appointment in the club (playing wise) correct.
Leeds are showing what can happen if you get it completely wrong. It could take several years (or more) before we see Leeds challenging for honours again. Not all of that is down to one poor coaching appointment but it plays a highly significant part.
Then we are never likely to agree, because the difference was monumental IMO.
I'm with you on this. A good coach makes the world of difference. A coach of Maguire's standard would improve Leeds markedly, no doubt, but even then we are probably a handful of players short of regaining a GF spot IMO.
Had he done it with the same set of players, then we would have agreed. But he didn't did he?
True, he didn't have access to Noble's best second rower in Gareth Hock.
The only other difference as I recall was Deacon in for Tim Smith, and I don't think anybody was trumpeting that as a master stroke, in fact it was ridiculed by quite a lot of people at the time.
Of course young players were a year older - that's the same at every club every year.
You can tell when a team is being badly coached and when a team are being extremely well coached. Wigan and Leeds are excellent respective examples of this and Maguire at Leeds would make a big difference, just as BMD at Leeds has in the opposite direction.
Had he done it with the same set of players, then we would have agreed. But he didn't did he?
The only difference between 2009 and winning the GF in Maguire's first season was Deacon, so obviously while not the same I doubt we can attribute the massive difference to Deacon. It was like watching a different team when Maguire took over, everything was done to a considerably high standard and with an intensity light years away from the previous seasons with Noble. The defensive and attacking structure, the generally game plan and attitude of the players are light years ahead of the time under Noble.
Every player in our squad could probably earn more money with another club. But they prefer to sacrifice a few extra quid in their back pocket to share special memories. And playing at a place like Old Trafford on a night like this makes it all worthwhile.
True, he didn't have access to Noble's best second rower in Gareth Hock.
The only other difference as I recall was Deacon in for Tim Smith, and I don't think anybody was trumpeting that as a master stroke, in fact it was ridiculed by quite a lot of people at the time.
Save your breath. Gotcha refuses to accept that Tony Smith is a better coach than Paul Cullen and Smith has only been successful because of new players brought in.
The only difference between 2009 and winning the GF in Maguire's first season was Deacon, so obviously while not the same I doubt we can attribute the massive difference to Deacon. It was like watching a different team when Maguire took over, everything was done to a considerably high standard and with an intensity light years away from the previous seasons with Noble. The defensive and attacking structure, the generally game plan and attitude of the players are light years ahead of the time under Noble.
Save your breath. Gotcha refuses to accept that Tony Smith is a better coach than Paul Cullen and Smith has only been successful because of new players brought in.
True, he didn't have access to Noble's best second rower in Gareth Hock.
The only other difference as I recall was Deacon in for Tim Smith, and I don't think anybody was trumpeting that as a master stroke, in fact it was ridiculed by quite a lot of people at the time.
Really? I direct you to the next quote below.
FearTheVee wrote:
Of course young players were a year older
Now where in agreement. Do not under estimate what this did to Wigan. Last season who were their shinging lights again besides Richards? Tomkins brothers, Farrell, Hansen, McClorum, Goulding, to name but a few. All players that had become fully adjusted to Super League by the previous coach. Not too dissimilar to when Leeds had introduced many of our own youngsters to super league in 2002 and 2003. In fact we came extremely close to winning a cup and league double in 2003, but the players were better still in 2004 and it showed, and better again in 2005 despite no silverware.
FearTheVee wrote:
You can tell when a team is being badly coached and when a team are being extremely well coached. Wigan and Leeds are excellent respective examples of this and Maguire at Leeds would make a big difference, just as BMD at Leeds has in the opposite direction.
Completely agree with this. But taking 2011 out of the question, what would then happen in 2012 in our current set up? we would be back to what McDermott has done this year. That's the bottom line of it.
A new coach will always make an "immediate" impact on a team lost with confidence and direction. But would Maguire really make a difference going forward then with those very same past it players?
But would Maguire really make a difference going forward then with those very same past it players?
Yes, because the team would be playing with structure, intensity, intelligence and direction. Rather than being an ill-disciplined, headless chicken rabble. You may disagree with that, but I'd venture that it's a difficult stance to adopt with any real confidence.
I'm not arguing the merits of Leeds' playing rosta, I'm arguing the merits of a good coach.