: Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:34 am  

Blotto wrote:

Well P!stake you can't be faulted for your ridiculous negativity all season!

Ridiculous negativity? Where was I wrong then?

: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:11 am  

mystic eddie wrote:

Ridiculous negativity? Where was I wrong then?

You weren't wrong. I think you get a lot of stick on here because there was a lot of optimism about the team at the start of the season and people don't like being reminded that they have been wrong. That, and the fact that they don't like being reminded of how bad things are.

It is one thing McNamara pointing out the positives - this needs to be done for the team to build on their strengths this year, but it is another thing implying that Bradford 'weren't far off', which has been blatantly not the case all season.

: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:17 am  

Trimalchio wrote:

You weren't wrong. I think you get a lot of stick on here because there was a lot of optimism about the team at the start of the season and people don't like being reminded that they have been wrong. That, and the fact that they don't like being reminded of how bad things are.

: Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:05 am  

I think Bulls weren't close to Saints or Leeds, but they were closer than fifth place suggests: unfortunate not to finish third or fourth in the competition ladder. And McNamara is pinpointing a reason why they did not. In games that finished with the sides separated by a score or less Bulls took two points from a possible twelve, and that does not include close games such as Catalans (h), Quins (a) and Leeds (a) where late scores widened the margin of victory. For comparison, Wigan took eleven points from a possible eighteen in six-point-or-less games. "This year Bulls either won by a distance or didn't win at all" is a useful observation.

I also think that your example of 2007 as 'excuses' made for poor performance is a weak one given that Ganson/Klein and the points deduction were both off-field cock ups beyond the control of the Bulls' playing and coaching staff that resulted in the side being four league points worse off, six points against their rivals for second Leeds, than their onfield performance merited. That meant missing out on second, quite a big deal.

There is a balance to be struck between 'shoulda woulda coulda' and 'no excuses - we were s**t': neither extreme is very useful. McNamara's point is a valid one, especially given that he does not attribute the narrow defeats to pure misfortune...

“Mentally we need to be stronger in certain situations, especially when we’ve not been able to maintain intensity. It’s a huge part of the game.

“A lot of things we do in our off-season and pre-season will be structured around self-discipline and sacrifices in order to be mentally tougher.”

This isn't something he's hoping comes right, rather something he's saying he'll work to put right. Big difference.

: Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:10 am  

af wrote:

I think Bulls weren't close to Saints or Leeds, but they were closer than fifth place suggests: unfortunate not to finish third or fourth in the competition ladder. And McNamara is pinpointing a reason why they did not. In games that finished with the sides separated by a score or less Bulls took two points from a possible twelve, and that does not include close games such as Catalans (h), Quins (a) and Leeds (a) where late scores widened the margin of victory. For comparison, Wigan took eleven points from a possible eighteen in six-point-or-less games. "This year Bulls either won by a distance or didn't win at all" is a useful observation.

Yep. It usefully shows that we fail under pressure.

: Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:29 am  

mystic eddie wrote:

If Mr McNamara actually held his hands up now and again and admitted he has made plenty of mistakes then I guess there would be a bit more sympathy for him.

I think I've demonstrated that's pretty much what he's done. Bring on the sympathy...

mystic eddie wrote:

Yep. It usefully shows that we fail under pressure.

... if I'm honest, that could have been a little more sympathetic.

: Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:04 pm  

af wrote:

I think I've demonstrated that's pretty much what he's done. Bring on the sympathy...

I don't actually think you did TBH. Still, this skirting round the issues is kinda making me think that you are actually writing Mr McNamara's press releases.

He notes a need to improve mentally, but seems to omit tactically, physically (from a fitness point of view) and finally the need to improve on the recruitment side of things.

: Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:23 pm  

Not so much writing his press releases as encouraging people to read them and think about them before responding.

Let's have a look at what you require apologies (?) from him regarding:

tactically

He's not going to go into detail as to what went wrong last year and how he's going to do it differently in 2009 in the press.

physically (from a fitness point of view)

Martin Clawson is very well-regarded. I think fitness problems have come from not controlling the PTB and so being run ragged round there.

and finally the need to improve on the recruitment side of things.

He's done this tacitly by signing and attempting to sign new players. If you're looking for a statement along the lines of 'OK, the lot that I signed last year were crap, no offence Paul, Chris, etc', you'll wait a long time.

: Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:31 pm  

af wrote:

He's not going to go into detail as to what went wrong last year and how he's going to do it differently in 2009 in the press.

He's done this tacitly by signing and attempting to sign new players. If you're looking for a statement along the lines of 'OK, the lot that I signed last year were crap, no offence Paul, Chris, etc', you'll wait a long time.

Cool. That is fine. He can do his talking in private. I will happily highlight his failings in public.

af wrote:

Martin Clawson is very well-regarded. I think fitness problems have come from not controlling the PTB and so being run ragged round there.

Now you see, this I find odd. Plenty of people on here have said the same thing in regards to fitness and if he is so good at what he does, why does this issue keep getting raised? How is Solomona still so bloody fat?

Maybe those "costly narrow defeats" might well have been caused with the fact that we always seem to look a shot side after 60 minutes and certainly seem to struggle to perform for the whole 80 minutes?

If this is being caused by not controlling the PTB, I will take that as a tactical failing of the coach, if not, it is a failing of the conditioner IMO.

: Mon Sep 22, 2008 1:14 pm  

mystic eddie wrote:

How is Solomona still so bloody fat?

Too many orgies

Next!

Seriously though a player with a poor attitude to training according to previous coaches (Endacott) although Shane McNally managed to get the best out of him why not McBanaana