: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:09 pm  

I'm not convinced he will go. When he looks at it after he has got over the disappointment has died down, and his pride has recovered from the bashing it has taken, he will hopefully see this as a good thing.

He has worked for Smith before as assistant, so hopefully their relationship is already sound, and the club could have been ruthless and sacked him.

Hopefully he will realise he has lots to learn, and he will be working for one of the best around.

I do feel for him slightly, as he has had to go through this learning curve in public, in a very demanding position, but it is just one of those things. I'm sure nobody thought things would be as bad as they have turned out, and the club had to act.

Lowes staying. : Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:21 am  

Why, after all the vitriol aimed at James Lowes over the last few weeks, do people seem happy to keep him at the club in an assistant role? If the guy doesn't know what he is doing as most people said then he doesn't know what he is doing. Simple as that. And isn't Nigel Wright asssitant coach? Why are we paying two people to do one job. There is no place for sentiment and feeling sorry for people in top level professional sport and we should have let him go. I know he is out of contract at the end of season and probably won't be staying, but we have been a bit of a soft touch in my opinion. He has been an assistant before and hasn't seemed to learn much and if he feels he is ready to be a head coach he should try and find a job in NL1 to prove himself first.

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:32 am  

I think most people are quite willing to give Lowes a chance and accept that Wire's poor form was down to his lack of experience and learning, rather than him just being a bad coach. For someone like Tony Smith to say he thinks Lowes could be great with the right training is a pretty decent endorsement.

As assisstant coach he makes no major decisions on strategy, squad etc. Although he does get a say Smith will have the final word.

Although I never rated Jimmy and *really* didn't want him as our head coach, I can accept that his (and the team's) poor performance came down to a complete lack of experience and being put into a situation he never should have been by the club, something which was said many times on here even before we knew about Tony Smith.

I think the way to look at Jimmy is in the same way as Chris Reiley. Some people think he's just not good enough and never will be. Some people think that with the right framework and support he could be a top player. Lowes is very similar, it depends which side of the fence you're sitting on. With Smith as his mentor he could become a very good coach. Plus his contract only runs to the end of the year, he may well choose to move on then. I think Smith as top dog with Lowes in an assisstant role is the best outcome for all concerned. At the end of the day, better Lowes stay and another young British coach is developed and moves on rather than sacked and disappears into obscurity to be replaced by yet another Aussie coach.

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:39 am  

Lowes is a good coach, but is not a good head coach.

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:40 am  

Rugbychick™ wrote:

I think most people are quite willing to give Lowes a chance and accept that Wire's poor form was down to his lack of experience and learning, rather than him just being a bad coach. For someone like Tony Smith to say he thinks Lowes could be great with the right training is a pretty decent endorsement.

As assisstant coach he makes no major decisions on strategy, squad etc. Although he does get a say Smith will have the final word.

Although I never rated Jimmy and *really* didn't want him as our head coach, I can accept that his (and the team's) poor performance came down to a complete lack of experience and being put into a situation he never should have been by the club, something which was said many times on here even before we knew about Tony Smith.

I think the way to look at Jimmy is in the same way as Chris Reiley. Some people think he's just not good enough and never will be. Some people think that with the right framework and support he could be a top player. Lowes is very similar, it depends which side of the fence you're sitting on. With Smith as his mentor he could become a very good coach. Plus his contract only runs to the end of the year, he may well choose to move on then. I think Smith as top dog with Lowes in an assisstant role is the best outcome for all concerned. At the end of the day, better Lowes stay and another young British coach is developed and moves on rather than sacked and disappears into obscurity to be replaced by yet another Aussie coach.

Good post.

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:48 am  

I don't have a problem with Jimmy staying and who's to say that what he was trying to achieve is wrong. It may be that his lack of experience has determined that he couldn't get the squad to where he wanted them to be quick enough. Tony Smith can help him with that and if Jimmy is willing to be patient and to learn then if after Smith's contract is up and Jimmy takes over solely then we can judge him on his ability as a head coach.

The board took the risk and it didn't pay off they have now acted so lets see what happens now.

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:52 am  

RAI of Sunshine wrote:

Lowes is a good coach, but is not a good head coach.

Lowes might be a good assistant coach(although i don't know what this is based on) but he strikes me as the type who will never settle for that and wants to be the top man. Even if he stays under smith and learns, which i doubt he will, i still do not want him given the head coach job until he has proven he is capable. It seems that because he was such a good player who played at the top level he seems unwilling to learn his trade as a coach at the lower levels.

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:55 am  

Moe syslak wrote:

Lowes might be a good assistant coach(although i don't know what this is based on) but he strikes me as the type who will never settle for that and wants to be the top man. Even if he stays under smith and learns, which i doubt he will, i still do not want him given the head coach job until he has proven he is capable. It seems that because he was such a good player who played at the top level he seems unwilling to learn his trade as a coach at the lower levels.

Well it seems Smith has the idea to train Lowes up to be that good. Every time I've heard Smith talking about Lowes, it's always:

"Train him up to be a good head coach, either at this club, or somewhere else"

If Lowes doesn't want to play second fiddle, then he has the option to walk. Needless to say, I believe that will be a massive mistake on his part.

Plus I never said he was a good assistant coach, I said he was a good coach.

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:56 am  

Moe syslak wrote:

Lowes might be a good assistant coach(although i don't know what this is based on) but he strikes me as the type who will never settle for that and wants to be the top man. Even if he stays under smith and learns, which i doubt he will, i still do not want him given the head coach job until he has proven he is capable. It seems that because he was such a good player who played at the top level he seems unwilling to learn his trade as a coach at the lower levels.

I don't think it's necessarily that. But if people give him opportunities along the way he isn't exactly going to turn them down is he.

: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:56 am  

Moe syslak wrote:

Lowes might be a good assistant coach(although i don't know what this is based on) but he strikes me as the type who will never settle for that and wants to be the top man. Even if he stays under smith and learns, which i doubt he will, i still do not want him given the head coach job until he has proven he is capable. It seems that because he was such a good player who played at the top level he seems unwilling to learn his trade as a coach at the lower levels.

I can't see what's wrong with him having aspirations to be the top man.