[Bulliac]

Re: Hock : Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:23 pm  

bullsfan4ever wrote:

He contradicts himself, though, and other players didn't quite do the same as him.

"For missing a 10-minute swim - I think it's out of order really". "I agree that it was wrong and we shouldn't have had a drink, but there were six or seven of us and we all did the same thing". "That's the only thing that's happened and I only did the same as what the other lads did, apart from sleeping in for half an hour". ""A few of the boys went out for a few drinks and then went out for a bite to eat. We came back and I overslept. I missed a 10-minute swim and a 10-minute medical check-up."

From this, the others involved had a drink but didn't miss next morning's sessions. The rumours floating about suggest that those others involved will be dropped for Saturday, so we'll see.

There's also the point that he is a senior bloke now, who given his previous, must be a step and a half [at least] beyond an informal warning.

Now, I don't know who the others were but have to assume they most likely don't have 'previous', so can be treated with an informal/formal warning and not, unlike Mr Hock, be already not so much half way down the discipline code as falling out of the bottom end of it.

Re: Hock : Wed Oct 23, 2013 4:05 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

Makes no difference whether they went out for one pint or a gallon. No booze at all was the rule. That should be easy to understand.

Hock’s on thinner ice than the rest due to his past record (cocaine/gouging) and was the worst offender judging by the fact that he slept in. Hence he’s gone.

The rest made a bad mistake and showed themselves to be unprofessional. On the eve of the biggest tournament any of them have played in too. What numpties.

I wonder if many of the culprits contributed to the 1eague3 survey complaining about the lack of profile etc for the sport? If so I wonder if they’re happier now.

I remember Hanley once broke curfew under Reilly (it’s in Reilly’s biography) so it can happen to anyone.

This.

Maybe Hock had more than the others? Who knows, but I'd have thought that it would take some doing to be in a state such that you can't rouse yourself on an important morning, and fail to report for a swim and a medical with your national team. That is completely outrageous. His pathetic whingeing just makes it worse to me.

I am certain disciplinary action will be taken against the others who broke the alcohol ban too, but seemingly they all turned up as required. maybe they took it easier than Hock. Or just have better alarm clocks. No matter, they did that part of their duty, but going out on the razz after getting beat by Italy is just unbelievable. If they had all been booted, I for one wouldn't have complained. Who the fsck do they think they are? And more to the point, having miserably failed and staged a bit of a national humiliation against Italy, how did they even feel like going out? I would have hoped they would have been ashamed to show their miserable pathetic faces until they did something we could respect.

The whole thing does not bode well. I tend to agree with tigertot. I have always had the view that the manager must, above all else, be a leader of men. Is McNamara? Well, on this occasion, a number of international players have simply stuck 2 fingers up at him and his instructions (as well as at me and you, btw) and simply ignored a reasonable and limited drinking embargo. Would it have happened with an Alex Ferguson, Shaun Wane or even Tony Smith in charge? Again, who knows, but my feeling is that the odds would be at least greatly increased.

Except in the case of Hock, who obviously doesn't give a toss and is out of control.

Re: Hock : Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:14 am  

Is Hock for real? He was already on his 2nd chance after his drug ban, which I don't disagree with because IMO he made a huge mistake but deserved a chance to make amends. Sadly it seems he hasn't learnt much from his stint out the game. You would hope he would have been one of the most committed players in the squad given how close his career came to ending up on the scrap heap. The guy obviously has some issues that he needs helping through but he should be nowhere near the England squad.

Looks like Nobby will need all his man management skills to keep that squad of potential trouble makers toeing the line next year.

Re: Hock : Thu Oct 24, 2013 8:16 am  

tigertot wrote:

I'm living on chinese rocks
All my best things are in hock

I think Hock’s level of stupidity is obvious, but that not really my point. Would this have happened under a different coach? Does it show a lack of respect for SMc? Personally, I think SMc doesn’t have the kudos as a player or the record as a coach required to be able to psychologically control the more wayward players. I am surprised at Graham & Hardaker if the rumours are correct. I don’t think SMc had many other options available after the indiscretion but I am not sure it would have happened under some other coaches. Discuss.

I'm living on chinese rocks
All my best things are in hock

The great Johnny Thunders........now where's my spotify app

Re: Hock : Thu Oct 24, 2013 8:42 am  

Loose cannon etc Hock may be but to beat the aussies you need people with his go forward aggression imo.

To me this smacks of weak/bad management and rather than face up and cope with someone like Hock,its much easier to cast him aside.Where would such as Hanley have ended up if the same weak willed management had been applied to him?Instead a REAL MANAGER OF MEN Peter Fox was on his case and brought him through and he ended up been voted the world's best player.
Man management of the lowest order imo.I am not surprised though.

Come on ENGLAND!!!!!

Re: Hock : Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:10 am  

jayb wrote:

I'm living on chinese rocks
All my best things are in hock

The great Johnny Thunders........now where's my spotify app

I cannot help but make the amusing association with Hock & hock, in a song about drugs.

Re: Hock : Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:13 am  

madasmcmadammcmad2 wrote:

Loose cannon etc Hock may be but to beat the aussies you need people with his go forward aggression imo.

To me this smacks of weak/bad management and rather than face up and cope with someone like Hock,its much easier to cast him aside.Where would such as Hanley have ended up if the same weak willed management had been applied to him?Instead a REAL MANAGER OF MEN Peter Fox was on his case and brought him through and he ended up been voted the world's best player.
Man management of the lowest order imo.I am not surprised though.

Come on ENGLAND!!!!!

I think it does show SMc doesn't have the respect required. However that does not excuse any of the player's behaviour in any infintesimal way whatsoever.
Would this be the same Hanley who was suspended by Wigan for several weeks due to his misbehaviour in training?

[Bulliac]

Re: Hock : Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:51 am  

tigertot wrote:

I think it does show SMc doesn't have the respect required. However that does not excuse any of the player's behaviour in any infintesimal way whatsoever.
Would this be the same Hanley who was suspended by Wigan for several weeks due to his misbehaviour in training?

Also the same Hanley who imposed an alcohol ban on Saints players when he was head coach there. A bit like so many 'born agains', it's really amazing how 'wild boys' come on so heavy and puritanical when they get some authority.

[Bulliac]

Re: Hock : Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:06 am  

madasmcmadammcmad2 wrote:

Loose cannon etc Hock may be but to beat the aussies you need people with his go forward aggression imo.

To me this smacks of weak/bad management and rather than face up and cope with someone like Hock,its much easier to cast him aside.Where would such as Hanley have ended up if the same weak willed management had been applied to him?Instead a REAL MANAGER OF MEN Peter Fox was on his case and brought him through and he ended up been voted the world's best player.
Man management of the lowest order imo.I am not surprised though.

Come on ENGLAND!!!!!

There's a some of truth in what you say about Hock as a player but you can only give so many 'second' chances. If one person is seen to be immune from the consequences of his actions, how does that play out with the others in the squad?

To manage people there has to be a strong element of consistency and fairness in your decision making and if you have a persistent offender [maybe leading others astray?] then, like in any court, the punishment is going to be higher. Not doing so wouldn't make you "real manager", it would leave you as a manager who ducked his responsibilities. To be fair to McNamara he knew where the buck stopped and he took action.

Re: Hock : Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:09 am  

Those who know Hock say his IQ's in single figures. I'm really disappointed that a culture didn't exist within the group that when this was mentioned somebody didn't say, 'don't be silly Gareth, what will this look like with your rep?' Instead a few others went with him.