Gazwire wrote:
He won the first 8. We lost a load of forwards and the camp was divided after the Mcguire debacle. During those first 8 games the players all seemed happy and the Mcguire thing seemed to be the catalyst for discontent. Without the Mcguire shenanigans, things could/should have been very different as the team morale would have been fine, which appears to have been the main cause for our poor performances. With all this in mind, I think the club would gave been reluctant to sack him and not give him chance to make amends as the dip in form would have possibly been attributed to the camp split.
That said, Gleeson seems to have really boosted our attacking prowess as Chambers alluded too in his interview. They also seem to respect Chambers. I think post the Mcguire saga, Chambers has proved to be a better coach in reuniting the different factions and as a result, is getting more out the players. So in hindsight, an earlier change would have been better.
I might be getting the timeline wrong, but the collapse in results and performances also coincided with Dufty getting dropped after the Saints game (I think). While we didn’t look like winning, and Dufty wasn’t great, he wasn’t the only one or most deserving to get the axe. At that point we had got beaten twice by the two best teams in the competition and cruised the rest.
Hindsight is wonderful, but it looks like he reacts better to an arm around the shoulder than a week on the naughty step.
I’m not suggesting that the McGuire thing didn’t impact, I’m sure it did, but an already disgruntled player getting dropped won’t help the mood around the place, likely ostracised him (and that group of antipodean players who were upset with the McGuire handling) further.
