: Mon May 25, 2009 5:49 am  

Roofaldo wrote:

In what way? Yes, you could argue that we've signed players that can't catch or pass, however both those can be improved by the correct application of training and coaching

The players we have our far too inconsistent. They are by nature not by coaching. Numerous good coaches tried to make Solomona more consistent but failed. MacNamara doesnt coach Platt to shepherd a 40/20 kick into touch. Halley will have plenty of good games but will find that against certain teams his lack of physique will limit his impact.

Throughout the history of rugby league there have been numerous players that were very talented but erratic. Some of them became more consistent with time, most did not. The real difference between a top quality player and a second tier player is often consistency. We seem to have specialised in recruiting the less reliable players.

A player such as Jeffries is no more likely to be coached into having 3 consecutive good matches than Joe Vagana could have been coached into scoring length of the field tries. He just doesnt have it in him.

: Mon May 25, 2009 8:32 am  

Cibaman wrote:

The players we have our far too inconsistent. They are by nature not by coaching. Numerous good coaches tried to make Solomona more consistent but failed. MacNamara doesnt coach Platt to shepherd a 40/20 kick into touch. Halley will have plenty of good games but will find that against certain teams his lack of physique will limit his impact.

Throughout the history of rugby league there have been numerous players that were very talented but erratic. Some of them became more consistent with time, most did not. The real difference between a top quality player and a second tier player is often consistency. We seem to have specialised in recruiting the less reliable players.

A player such as Jeffries is no more likely to be coached into having 3 consecutive good matches than Joe Vagana could have been coached into scoring length of the field tries. He just doesnt have it in him.

I was thinking similar on Fri night. We have players who on their day can be very good RL players but perhaps not consistently. People like Sheriffe, Nero and Platt etc have shown some great Rugby for the Bulls but equally have had their share of howlers.

The successful Bulls sides had quality players who were dependable such as Withers, Lowes, Gartner and Forshaw. We also had some true match winners in Robbie, Henry, Hape, Vaikona and Vainikolo. We simply do not have players of an equivalent class right now.

: Mon May 25, 2009 8:51 am  

I like this thread...

All coaches fail.

So there is no point in sacking a failing coach. As you'd be replacing them with another failing coach

Also, we lost some games but we could have won them. The ones we've won we could have lost, so we've been competitive, so let's not worry. (Isn't that just sport - you could win, but you could lose)

Status quo rules! Macca for England/ GB job (oh, yeah hes already got one)

: Mon May 25, 2009 8:56 am  

bigsi wrote:

All coaches fail.

Really?

Ask the fans of Aberdeen FC and Manchester United FC about Sir Alex Ferguson, Celtic FC fans about Jock Stein, or Liverpool FC fans about Bob Paisley......

Different sports, I accept, but it does tend to contradict your point.

: Mon May 25, 2009 9:39 am  

mystic eddie wrote:

Really?

Ask the fans of Aberdeen FC and Manchester United FC about Sir Alex Ferguson, Celtic FC fans about Jock Stein, or Liverpool FC fans about Bob Paisley......

Different sports, I accept, but it does tend to contradict your point.

I was indirectly quoting from an earlier celebrated post, to highlight the clear contradictions to such a generalisation. The cases you refer to are good examples of which there will be many others.

Not all coaches fail and therefore the line of argument that Macca shouldn't be replace as all coaches fail is empirically false.

: Mon May 25, 2009 9:49 am  

bigsi wrote:

I was indirectly quoting from an earlier celebrated post, to highlight the clear contradictions to such a generalisation. The cases you refer to are good examples of which there will be many others.

My apologies. I mis-interpreted your post.

I really must try harder!

: Mon May 25, 2009 9:54 am  

mystic eddie wrote:

:oops:

My apologies. I mis-interpreted your post.

I really must try harder!

Yes, you must. Normally you are pretty on the ball so, just this once, you get the benefit of doubt.

: Mon May 25, 2009 10:00 am  

bigsi wrote:

Yes, you must. Normally you are pretty on the ball so, just this once, you get the benefit of doubt.

Cheers!

: Mon May 25, 2009 10:26 am  

Cibaman wrote:

The players we have our far too inconsistent. They are by nature not by coaching. Numerous good coaches tried to make Solomona more consistent but failed. MacNamara doesnt coach Platt to shepherd a 40/20 kick into touch. Halley will have plenty of good games but will find that against certain teams his lack of physique will limit his impact.

Throughout the history of rugby league there have been numerous players that were very talented but erratic. Some of them became more consistent with time, most did not. The real difference between a top quality player and a second tier player is often consistency. We seem to have specialised in recruiting the less reliable players.

A player such as Jeffries is no more likely to be coached into having 3 consecutive good matches than Joe Vagana could have been coached into scoring length of the field tries. He just doesnt have it in him.

To a point I agree.

However a team with proven SL talent like Tadulala, Sykes, Nero, Scruton, Newton, Lynch, Burgess, Morrison, Menzies and Langley should not be running second from bottom after half a season.

Recruitment has been piss-poor for a few years now, but there is still plenty there for any coach worth his salt to mould into something competent, even with a couple of duds thrown in.

: Mon May 25, 2009 10:30 am  

Asim wrote:

Recruitment has been mickey-poor for a few years now, but there is still plenty there for any coach worth his salt to mould into something competent, even with a couple of duds thrown in.

Exactley that's the point that I've been making.