: Thu May 28, 2009 10:18 pm  

But Steve McNamara hasn't had to build a club from bottom down. He tookover the Super League champions that were still in a very good position at the time he was promoted to head coach. It's only since Steve McNamara's appointment that we have diminished into the bottom of the league team that we are now.

: Thu May 28, 2009 10:24 pm  

Terry Monster wrote:

But Steve McNamara hasn't had to build a club from bottom down. He tookover the Super League champions that were still in a very good position at the time he was promoted to head coach. It's only since Steve McNamara's appointment that we have diminished into the bottom of the league team that we are now.

We may have been champion in 2006, but you can hardly say he took over a champion squad.

IMO the club wasn't left (and isn't in) the greatest shape on or off the field.

: Thu May 28, 2009 10:31 pm  

Wigan Bull wrote:

We may have been champion in 2006, but you can hardly say he took over a champion squad.

IMO the club wasn't left (and isn't in) the greatest shape on or off the field.

No but you can say that the 2006 squad is a far better balanced squad than the current squad.

: Thu May 28, 2009 10:34 pm  

Wigan Bull wrote:

I can't really argue with that stat.
Out of interest, how many of those loses were <12points?

Does it matter how many we lost by it's still a loss and they are still building up far too regualry.

: Thu May 28, 2009 11:13 pm  

Wigan Bull wrote:

We may have been champion in 2006, but you can hardly say he took over a champion squad.

IMO the club wasn't left (and isn't in) the greatest shape on or off the field.

World Champions? Granted, it wasn't the squad that he we finished 05 in but it was still jam packed with stars and talent right across the squad.
We had strike power all across the board then and we were still as dangerous as ever leading up to Nobbies departure.

: Thu May 28, 2009 11:13 pm  

Ten years from now, Bulls bottom of Championship 1 playing in front of crowds of 63 in Wibsey Park.

Mystic Eddie et al: "McNamara out now, it has gone too far, that's just 7 wins in 267 games"

af et al: "You have to give him time, he is the man to turn it around in the long run, look at his relationship with the juniors - this was only his third crop to have come through the system and he deserves the chance to hone his techniques and prove he is the right man for the job"

Everyone else will have given it up a long, long time ago.

: Thu May 28, 2009 11:56 pm  

Asim wrote:

Ten years from now, Bulls bottom of Championship 1 playing in front of crowds of 63 in Wibsey Park.

Mystic Eddie et al: "McNamara out now, it has gone too far, that's just 7 wins in 267 games"

af et al: "You have to give him time, he is the man to turn it around in the long run, look at his relationship with the juniors - this was only his third crop to have come through the system and he deserves the chance to hone his techniques and prove he is the right man for the job"

Everyone else will have given it up a long, long time ago.

Don't forget the impeccable logic of 'we've lost some games by less than 12 points', meaning we nearly won them, and as such we're really close to the top 4. So you see, losing by less than 12 points is really a success, and in this other parallel universe everything is fine and dandy, if only we ignore th fact that we DID lose and we are not going to end up in the top 4.

Same logic as - SM is hardly brilliant but then there's no saying anyone else would do better, a bit like saying 'well flu is unpleasant but then you could always get pneumonia, so let's learn to live with the Flu - who knows it might just end up as a bad cold'.

Much the same as all the arguments about not being able to get rid of SM because it'll cost us too much, at the same time as our gate income drops through the floor as a direct result of SM, meaning we've even less likely to get rid because we have less money to do so. Indeed if SM were to follow this line of reasoning he'd have us losing every week and have a job for life as Asim suggests!

I despair, this is club I love, like most of the posters on this board and yet some people seem resigned to failure and to viewing such resignation as somehow consistent with the moral high ground.

: Fri May 29, 2009 12:58 am  

anarkik wrote:

Don't forget the impeccable logic of 'we've lost some games by less than 12 points', meaning we nearly won them, and as such we're really close to the top 4. So you see, losing by less than 12 points is really a success, and in this other parallel universe everything is fine and dandy, if only we ignore th fact that we DID lose and we are not going to end up in the top 4.

Same logic as - SM is hardly brilliant but then there's no saying anyone else would do better, a bit like saying 'well flu is unpleasant but then you could always get pneumonia, so let's learn to live with the Flu - who knows it might just end up as a bad cold'.

Much the same as all the arguments about not being able to get rid of SM because it'll cost us too much, at the same time as our gate income drops through the floor as a direct result of SM, meaning we've even less likely to get rid because we have less money to do so. Indeed if SM were to follow this line of reasoning he'd have us losing every week and have a job for life as Asim suggests!

I despair, this is club I love, like most of the posters on this board and yet some people seem resigned to failure and to viewing such resignation as somehow consistent with the moral high ground.

Tha's a point I've been making for months .Yes we may not be able to afford to sack McNamara but if the crowds continue to drop it will simply get to the stage where we can't afford not to sack him.

: Fri May 29, 2009 4:25 am  

af wrote:

Perhaps the biggest of several parts of the puzzle you are missing is the issue of "Will sacking McNamara make things better?" .

Well, as we will not know until if/when it happens, it is kinda hard to answer that question is it not? You know as little as I do into whether it would be a success or not. Sadly, I have no crystal ball and neither do you so I reckon this is an odd argument. Are you honestly saying that we should not sack someone because we do not know whether a new face would do the job any better? If so, then no-one would ever get sacked in your world.

Perhaps you should become our Chairman - offering a no sacking guarantee would attract all the top bosses.

af wrote:

Just for example, Brian Mac's record at Quins suggests that good as he is, in the unlikely event of him taking the job, he would not meet this standard.

Yet you still posted last week that you would be happy with him? Why is that then?

Anyway, the above point also seems a bit odd because it is merely your opinion that you are peddling as fact.

: Fri May 29, 2009 4:35 am  

Wigan Bull wrote:

I don't know what the problem if on the field this season.
We could have easily won more games than we had. Even 5 of those (e.g. Wakefield, Cas, Hudds, Celtic and Salford), would have seen us on 19 points, in 4th, with a game in hand and the season suddenly has a different outlook.

But we could also have lost to Leeds and Saints and been sitting on 5 points and completely out of the picture.

But we didn't.

Personally, my feelings are that if you point was,

Wigan Bull wrote:

We should have easily won more games than we have.

Then I would have agreed.

Sorry WB, but points such as, "We could have won more than we had" or "How many losses were by less than 12 points?" are smacking of desperation I am afraid.