: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:37 am  

Thelonius wrote:

Read a few mentions in here about Paul Cullen. To be honest I don't think he would be a bad appointment.

IMO, the problem PC had at Warrington was that from day one he was too pally with the players, in particular two or three of the high profile players. This was great when he first took over and we were staring relegation in the face, but as we started to climb back to the lofty heights of mid table mediocrity and scraping into the playoffs it was backfiring. Certain senior players were allowed to get away with murder both on and off the field and divisions were created in the dressing room (divisions that I feel still exist and will do until some of those players leave the club).

PC is a good coach, and a very intelligent man. He knows what mistakes he made at Warrington, and I have no doubt that he won't be making the same mistakes in his next appointment wherever that may be. He took a very poor side and turned them into a mid table team who played some spectacular rugby and were capable of beating anyone (bar Saints) on their day. McNamara appears to be doing the exact opposite!

This may be true, I don't know, but my biggest concern comes from the occasion when he was guest analyst on Sky Sports and had a running argument with Phil Clarke over his central Kevin Keegan-esque philosophy that defence didn't matter providing you were good enough in attack. I remember him saying repeatedly that this was the Saints model which suggested a naivety and lack of understanding about the game and Saints in particular who have had one of the league's best defences since Daniel Anderson arrived.

All that said, what we need most at the moment is attacking structure so maybe there's something in it.....

: Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:41 am  

Bradford are awful. I said before the season that you have weak backs and halves. There isn't one player in there that strikes fear into the big teams. You have a good pack, but if they don't play well you have absolutely no chance. The Bradford side is topped off with a coach who simply looks out of his depth, like Lowes was at Warrington.

: Sun Mar 08, 2009 11:20 am  

Blobbynator wrote:

The Bradford side is topped off with a coach who simply looks out of his depth.

Not according to plenty on here he isn't.

His results suggest otherwise however.

: Sun Mar 08, 2009 11:23 am  

mystic eddie wrote:

Not according to plenty on here he isn't.

His results suggest otherwise however.

In fairness, after last night the majority of them seemed to have changed their tune.

Re: OK Macca Backers : Sun Mar 08, 2009 11:32 am  

tackler thommo wrote:

Went last night and was alarmed watching our "warmup". Seemed a complete shambles with several players apparently unaware of their role or position in the preparation.
As to our tactics, we invariably have a flat attacking line forcing us to make a flat pass to a collegue who is either standing still or who has no chance of winding up a turn of speed. Macca, when playing for us, was part of a superb attacking team than ran onto passes at speed and a break was also invaribly backed up. So why this uninspiring, flat football completely lacking flair. Take a look at the old videos and change now...please!

At last after 8 pages someone has mentioned the most glaringly obvious failing of Macnamara & the team.

: Sun Mar 08, 2009 11:51 am  

Block5Bull wrote:

This may be true, I don't know, but my biggest concern comes from the occasion when he was guest analyst on Sky Sports and had a running argument with Phil Clarke over his central Kevin Keegan-esque philosophy that defence didn't matter providing you were good enough in attack. I remember him saying repeatedly that this was the Saints model which suggested a naivety and lack of understanding about the game and Saints in particular who have had one of the league's best defences since Daniel Anderson arrived.

All that said, what we need most at the moment is attacking structure so maybe there's something in it.....

As well as his friendliness with his players, PC was also very friendly with those above him at Warrington too. They certainly allowed him, if not encouraged him, to play his Barcelona (we'll score more than you) style game. Perhaps he would have been better off, or in the future would be better off, if those above him encouraged a more balanced (attack/defense) approach. This is only my opinion of course!

: Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:03 pm  

Paul124897 wrote:

In fairness, after last night the majority of them seemed to have changed their tune.

About time too TBH.

: Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:17 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

We actually put together a performance that was bad for 80 minutes. A performance that one or two posters have been praying for. The OP must have used up several boxes of tissues as the match progressed, and I don't think he was crying.

Tbf, if you take out the "praying for" comment and replace with "expecting" then you would have a more valid point.

Nine pages in and still no-one defending him?????

: Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:29 pm  

Paul124897 wrote:

chomp chomp chomp

I'm sure your local shop sells them...

: Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:34 pm  

mystic eddie wrote:

Tbf, if you take out the "praying for" comment and replace with "expecting" then you would have a more valid point.

Nine pages in and still no-one defending him?????

Nothing's changed since last week. We're rebuilding. That takes time. Years. Not weeks.