: Fri May 29, 2009 5:49 am  

af wrote:

They are both a few years into what I see as ten year jobs, minimum, building a club from the bottom down.

No one picked up on this yet? Disappointing.

: Fri May 29, 2009 5:57 am  

af wrote:

No one picked up on this yet? Disappointing.

I saw the point. I assumed it was a typo and left it be. After all, trying to correct spelling/grammar/wording mistakes on here usually leads to condemnation and moans about "English lessons."

: Fri May 29, 2009 5:59 am  

mystic eddie wrote:

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

I would be happy with him. You wouldn't.

This isn't about moral high grounds. This is about balance of probabilities. I think SM is a better bet than AN Other. You disagree. But at least my bloke exists.

: Fri May 29, 2009 6:01 am  

mystic eddie wrote:

I saw the point. I assumed it was a typo and left it be.

Appreciated, very civil of you - though I could hardly have complained if anyone had suggested Freudian overtones.

: Fri May 29, 2009 6:58 am  

af wrote:

I would be happy with him. You wouldn't.

I think I would TBH.

af wrote:

This isn't about moral high grounds. This is about balance of probabilities. I think SM is a better bet than AN Other. You disagree. But at least my bloke exists.

And I never made that point so I am unsure why it is being used in conjunction with a post aimed towards me.

: Fri May 29, 2009 7:00 am  

I think the argument that "we're only losing by a few points" had some validity early in the season, particularly when those defeats were against the likes of Huddersfield. The argument is becoming more and more difficult to sustain as the season goes on.

Our last two narrow defeats were against the newcomers. Admittedly Celtic played a bit better than their record suggested and we're in good company losing to Salford, although I thought they were very ordinary for an hour against us. But I dont think we can take much comfort from the fact that we only lost those matches by a few points.

: Fri May 29, 2009 7:04 am  

af wrote:

Evidence of my own eyes over the last couple of years. They seem to be doing OK this year though they have still had some pretty shocking results in and amongst there. If he coaches them to a play-off berth for the first time then that would be a great accomplishment but they've been in the spots before only to fall away. I suspect he could do a similar job at Bradford given the time and presuming he wanted to come here and effectively start from scratch. Which gets onto RER's point. I am not presuming SM will get it right. I just think it's a likelier scenario than we chuck him out for AN Other, who improves first team results signficantly while also maintaining the youth project which as I understand it is very reliant on SM's personal relationship with the prospects we do have.

The reason why I want SM to stay is the same reason I think BM won't ( and probably shouldn't) come. They are both a few years into what I see as ten year jobs, minimum, building a club from the bottom down. Now I sympathise with Bullseye's squeaky bum on this (though not his 'three periods of success' - Champions 1903-04, and don't you forget it ), but if we are going to be a top club again then I think this has to be the approach. I think that our savvy in the market in the first years of Super League is now replicated by a lot of clubs - there's no way we'd be the only ones in for Lowes, TV, Les even these days. So we'd better get growing our own.

I'm not suggesting BM should take over at Bradford, quite the opposite. A successful team in London is far more important to the game than a short term problem at Bradford; Bradford will eventually rise again.

: Fri May 29, 2009 7:11 am  

If all these future world-beating youngsters are only at Bradford due to Mac & he is converting them in a Dead Poets Society stylee perhpas the job for him is Director of Yoof Development. And I am semi-serious.

: Fri May 29, 2009 7:21 am  

tigertot wrote:

I'm not suggesting BM should take over at Bradford, quite the opposite. A successful team in London is far more important to the game than a short term problem at Bradford; Bradford will eventually rise again.

I agree, but the thread is about Bradford's interests.

: Fri May 29, 2009 7:30 am  

mystic eddie wrote:

I think I would TBH.



And I never made that point so I am unsure why it is being used in conjunction with a post aimed towards me.

1. If he replicated his Quins' record, albeit graded up for the relative underlying strengths of the club, you would not be happy. His sides have still been pretty abject on frequent occasions, and he has yet to even get very near the play-offs with them. We will see how this season pans out, but he has yet to put anything on his cv of the equivalent of SM's 2007 minor premiership challenge. As far as I can see, BM's main advantage is that he has commited his coaching 'crimes' with a side most Bulls fans know and care little about.

2. You haven't named a replacement for SM, only stated he should go. When pressed you've suggested people we won't or wouldn't have got. AN Other is your candidate until you come up with another.