Re: Toronto and Rowley part company : Wed Nov 14, 2018 12:53 am  

Printer - so basically almost nothing was his fault? Utter tosh, which is what the management of the club determined. The team was patently unfit last year - we had several players with guts on them playing, and a bunch of others who looked out of puff ten minutes into a game. That's dreadful, nothing to do with injuries. There is no way to excuse it, it speaks volumes about a general decline in standards, which Sinfield alluded to when he took over.

As for recruitment, you say GH was responsible but clearly BM would also have been heavily involved, especially with the runs on the board he had from winning trophies. The truth is nobody knows who did what in that regard. Its possible BM had little influence, but that seems unlikely given his standing at the club (lets face it, any other coach would have been gone after 2016, never mind this year).

Which is why I've focused on what cannot be argued with - an unfit squad and continually picking players who were carrying injuries. Thats not down to recruitment, GH or the man in the moon - the buck stops with the coach.

Re: Toronto and Rowley part company : Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:13 am  

Call Me God wrote:

He has form of paying lip service and of delivering nowt without being handed a team with a great "spine'......The Printer will differ in opinion here but without McGuire and Sinfield he looked like a coach who had no plan B.....

“He has form” based on all those other many clubs he coached.....which was just Quins who weren’t exactly delivering anything or expecting to before he got there.

The argument that it’s only because he had good players at Leeds that he was successful......well coaches in any sport usually do have the best players. Are Pep Guardiola or Alex Ferguson poor coaches because they had the luxury of top players? And these great players he had were well into their 30’s and past their best during the time he had them, didn’t exactly have them during their peak years.

Re: Toronto and Rowley part company : Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:28 am  

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

Printer - so basically almost nothing was his fault? Utter tosh, which is what the management of the club determined. The team was patently unfit last year - we had several players with guts on them playing, and a bunch of others who looked out of puff ten minutes into a game. That's dreadful, nothing to do with injuries. There is no way to excuse it, it speaks volumes about a general decline in standards, which Sinfield alluded to when he took over.

As for recruitment, you say GH was responsible but clearly BM would also have been heavily involved, especially with the runs on the board he had from winning trophies. The truth is nobody knows who did what in that regard. Its possible BM had little influence, but that seems unlikely given his standing at the club (lets face it, any other coach would have been gone after 2016, never mind this year).

Which is why I've focused on what cannot be argued with - an unfit squad and continually picking players who were carrying injuries. Thats not down to recruitment, GH or the man in the moon - the buck stops with the coach.

Didn’t say nothing was his fault at all, just countered argued that he isn’t the awful coach you and some are determined to make out usually because he proved you wrong. You were going on about lack of fitness in 2016 and have been determined to stick with it even though 2017 showed the massive flaw in the criticisms of fitness and culture at the club so is skipped over by the anti-McDermott brigade.

He did pick players carrying an injury at times, despite what some anti McDermott fans want to believe, every coach is guilty of it. When he did isn’t that a sign he didn’t have faith in other players in his squad which again hacks back to recruitment. You say he’ll have had a say in recruitment and he probably.....but that doesn’t mean he got his first choice or even second or third choice.

Re: Toronto and Rowley part company : Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:31 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

“He has form” based on all those other many clubs he coached.....which was just Quins who weren’t exactly delivering anything or expecting to before he got there.

The argument that it’s only because he had good players at Leeds that he was successful......well coaches in any sport usually do have the best players. Are Pep Guardiola or Alex Ferguson poor coaches because they had the luxury of top players? And these great players he had were well into their 30’s and past their best during the time he had them, didn’t exactly have them during their peak years.

His SL grand Final winners had the same spine...he signed none of them......lt's see how Toronto play "expansive" Rugby under him.....

Re: Toronto and Rowley part company : Wed Nov 14, 2018 7:02 am  

Only someone with the most transparent of agendas would judge McDermott on his limited success with the basket case that is London and Toronto.

Re: Toronto and Rowley part company : Wed Nov 14, 2018 7:13 am  

Call Me God wrote:

His SL grand Final winners had the same spine...he signed none of them......lt's see how Toronto play "expansive" Rugby under him.....

Really? His last GF he had an 18 year old making only 12th appearance at FB, a centre he moved to HB and an unknown Aussie at hooker. Did have McGuire at HB yes but this was the same McGuire who suffered a serious lengthy knee injury just before McDermott came in and was never quite the same player and had to and did adapt his game under McDermott. Also the same McGuire that a lot said was finished in 2016 with the number of injuries he had and criticised McDermott for sticking with him as a starter and captain.....yet when McGuire delivered at the end of the year McDermott was lucky to have someone they said he shouldn’t still be picking that year.