[Bulliac]

: Mon May 25, 2009 3:25 pm  

bigsi wrote:

Hmm, difficult to argue when you keep changing the level of argument

Anyway, I paraphrased your post as saying all coaches fail so there is no point in getting a new one, as they too will fail.

Its a ridiculous claim. Do you really need me to explain it further? Okay

What I think you are saying is something along the lines of...

All coaches fail because they get the sack or leave their post at some point.

Okay, it is true all coaches leave their jobs at some point.

However, its also ridiculous . Its like saying that all people who leave their jobs, retire, etc have failed in their roles. Or, there is no point having a coach as they don't ultimately achieve.

Failure in coaching isn't necessarily counted in lost / won games. Its much more subtle than that. Many people would argue that Macca has failed and should be replaced. What you seem to be saying is that he shouldn't, as all coaches fail ultimatley. I don't believe the point on the thread is "do coaches achieve or fail" which is a huge topic. But should Macca go as he had failed.

No, I actually just responded to someone else`s change of direction which brought Fergusson into it. Personally I wouldn`t regard changing the level of the debate as being a problem and it`s impossible not to change the level since quite a few of the `Macca must go`posters simply chant the mantra and don`t really try to debate any proper points but merely point to the league position. To be fair I don`t set the level but merely respond to it.

It`s also not me who is wanting to change a coach because of his win lose ratio. If you read a little more carefully (or to be fair start at the beginning, cos it seems you`ve come in part way through) you`ll see that I`m one of those who are actually suggesting that it`s `a bit more subtle than that`

My overall problem in this debate is that I don`t really have a `position` on Macca. I don`t know whether removing him would bring any benefit or whether leaving him in situ is going to be for the best either. All along, all I`ve done is suggest that removing him and bringing in another coach is no panacea. I`ve also brought in a few reasons why I think the club would find it difficult to end his contract (financial). This shouldn`t be interpreted as believing that his remaining here is definitely for the best, cos like the rest on here I`m not qualified to judge.

I don`t know who suggested that there is no point in having a coach, but it wasn`t me either(it`s also silly, btw). You`re also twisting my words a little (do you work for the Daily Mail?)when you say I said Macca shouldn`t be sacked, what I`ve said is that there is little point in sacking him(since there is absolutely no guarantee that any incoming coach will fare any better), which ain`t quite the same thing, particularly when the decision is to be based purely on the narrow issue of results, which, in any case, as I keep pointing out aren`t really as bad as the headline position would suggest. The job of first team coach is much wider than that, though I accept that many will judge purely on the first team (hence the bit about ultimate failure)

Your last paragraph is one I can totally agree with though: this thread isn`t about whether coaches (in general) achieve or fail, but then I only mentioned it in passing, someone else has done a whole post on it

: Mon May 25, 2009 5:22 pm  

this is the bit I'm struggling with

"...(T)hat I`ve said is that there is little point in sacking him(since there is absolutely no guarantee that any incoming coach will fare any better)"

There is no guarantee in anything if we are going to that degree.

No team would ever change coach on that basis (that's what I mean by changing the level of the argument from a Macca specific one to a far fetched claim that no coach could be guaranteed to do any better).

I think its a fair call to say that other coach (unnamed, perhaps unavailable coach) could potentially do better.

Your reasons for wanting to stick with Macca or not having yet made up your mind or not wanting to judge are all, of course, perfectly reasonable. But to say that he shouldn't be replaced as no coach could be guaranteed to do better is a false premise and an unsound argument.

Having said all that I'm prob being uncharitable in my reading of your post, but I just can't resist illogical claims. All the best, Si

: Mon May 25, 2009 6:03 pm  

A team of Worrincy's is your only hope.

: Mon May 25, 2009 7:03 pm  

I note "spirit" and "confidence" are being mentioned a lot, and you could certainly state a case for those both being lacking in our current performances.

If we take Salford's display on Friday here was a team who are no great shakes, not filled with star names and without any amazing attacking talent, however their performance suggested they had those "spirit" and "confidence" attributes in abundance.

Part of the reason for that, and the way for any side to start building that up, is that they had a discernible game plan and were able to stick to it, they might not have made many inroads into our defence but they did keep turning us around and tiring us out with mostly sensible play, and they got the rewards for it later on.

If you are a team of limited capability, like Salford and ourselves (the league table doesn't lie) then you take your team and develop a style that suits their play, mistakes are almost inevitable, but how else do you learn things other than by trying and repetition?

If everyone knows what they are supposed to be doing, and what their team-mate is supposed to be doing, then you can have more confidence in your role, and in your team-mates, and with that comes spirit unfortunately 75% of the time we don't look like we have a clue what we are supposed to be doing- if you actually watched Bradford and could identify that the coaching staff were trying to put some kind of system in place it might lead you to go a bit easier on them, as it is that doesn't look to be happening, we looked a disorganised mess all too often.

: Mon May 25, 2009 7:21 pm  

Asim wrote:

I note "spirit" and "confidence" a...............snip.........we looked a disorganised mess all too often.

All good stuff Azim - and right IMO - but <hypothetically> how do you get around some of the players in your team just not being bothered? The undoubted knock-on affects of that across those that are, would be self evident in how the team as a whole is being viewed.

I suppose you'd look to either sort out why "they aren't bothered", and thereby address the individual issued and wider team spirit issue, but what if they don't want to play ball.

You could drop them or off load them. Dropping them is fine if you have back-up players to bring in. Off loading them is fine if someone wants them.

However, if you've set yourself up to "turning it all around" and making good what's at fault, human nature being what it is, I suspect, that it would be hard to "accept defeat" and take those steps. That could be even more difficult if the players at issued were a popular with the fan's / main player. I suspect you'd try everything before swallowing that bitter pill . . . .wouldn't you?

: Tue May 26, 2009 5:34 am  

Asim wrote:

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 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.

I think the strngth of a SL squad depends on not how good the 10 best players are but on the quality of the next 10 players in the squad.

If you were to take the 10 best players out of the 2003 and look at whats left it would be players such as Naylor, Radford, Parker, Deacon, Pryce, Langley, Reardon, Gartner, Paul, Pratt. Compare them to Platt, Sherrife, Jeffries, Deacon, Kopczack, Cook, Worrincy, Godwin, Halley, Rinaldi and you can understand the difference in league position.

Clearly we had a lot more money to spend in 2003. But its also noticeable how much more reliable and consistent the "lesser" players were.

[Bulliac]

: Tue May 26, 2009 8:14 am  

bigsi wrote:

this is the bit I'm struggling with

"...(T)hat I`ve said is that there is little point in sacking him(since there is absolutely no guarantee that any incoming coach will fare any better)"

There is no guarantee in anything if we are going to that degree.

No team would ever change coach on that basis (that's what I mean by changing the level of the argument from a Macca specific one to a far fetched claim that no coach could be guaranteed to do any better).

I think its a fair call to say that other coach (unnamed, perhaps unavailable coach) could potentially do better.

Your reasons for wanting to stick with Macca or not having yet made up your mind or not wanting to judge are all, of course, perfectly reasonable. But to say that he shouldn't be replaced as no coach could be guaranteed to do better is a false premise and an unsound argument.

Having said all that I'm prob being uncharitable in my reading of your post, but I just can't resist illogical claims. All the best, Si

There is no argument from me that another coach `might` do better, bigsi it`s just that all the background stuff would still be around (if you don`t mind I won`t list it all again, it`s been done to death over the last three or four monts or so) and it`s all stuff the coach has no control over.

Basically the suggestion is that the club spends a lot of money buying out a a coach`s contract due, in many respects, to problems which aren`t of his making. Basically I don`t feel that is the best use of resources, particularly when I`ve nor real reason to think a new hand on the tiller is going to bring any more success,. Now you can agree or disagree but I don`t think there is any illogicallity.

: Tue May 26, 2009 11:30 am  

Cibaman wrote:

I think the strngth of a SL squad depends on not how good the 10 best players are but on the quality of the next 10 players in the squad.

If you were to take the 10 best players out of the 2003 and look at whats left it would be players such as Naylor, Radford, Parker, Deacon, Pryce, Langley, Reardon, Gartner, Paul, Pratt. Compare them to Platt, Sherrife, Jeffries, Deacon, Kopczack, Cook, Worrincy, Godwin, Halley, Rinaldi and you can understand the difference in league position.

Clearly we had a lot more money to spend in 2003. But its also noticeable how much more reliable and consistent the "lesser" players were.

Of course compared to our best squads this lot don't come close, but if we compare the squad now to currently better performing squads at the likes of Quins, Hull KR, Huddersfield, Hull, Cas, Salford, Catalans and Wakefield I don't think we really match up badly depth-wise, and certainly shouldn't be languishing below them all in the table as we are at present.

: Tue May 26, 2009 11:33 am  

Asim wrote:

Of course compared to our best squads this lot don't come close, but if we compare the squad now to currently better performing squads at the likes of Quins, Hull KR, Huddersfield, Hull, Cas, Salford, Catalans and Wakefield I don't think we really match up badly depth-wise, and certainly shouldn't be languishing below them all in the table as we are at present.

I think a lot would say that we have stronger squads than many of those above us. Think about the likes of Wakey and Salford. We have "better" players than them and more depth - so what is going wrong?

: Tue May 26, 2009 11:34 am  

debaser wrote:

I think a lot would say that we have stronger squads than many of those above us. Think about the likes of Wakey and Salford. We have "better" players than them and more depth - so what is going wrong?

John Kear is a better coach than McNamara.