: Sun Dec 14, 2008 6:38 pm  

Beechwood Bull wrote:

Being caught out over denying what that you called SM McBanana must have hurt but this is desperate even from you.

oh dear! Chump.

: Sun Dec 14, 2008 6:43 pm  

af wrote:

Just thought of an analogy for Eddie - imagine you don't like your house, but if you were to sell up the market is such that any house you'd get would be likely to be much worse. Would you still sell and move out?

crap analogy. I would have bought a decent quality house in the first place rather than pick the first and cheapest one that came on the market.

: Sun Dec 14, 2008 11:14 pm  

mystic eddie wrote:

crap analogy. I would have bought a decent quality house in the first place rather than pick the first and cheapest one that came on the market.

I think you might have ended up in a cardboard box mate.

: Sun Dec 14, 2008 11:43 pm  

Asim wrote: Maybe the coaching staff are just incapable of getting the best out of these players who are, after all, are actually quite good really? I know some think saying such a thing is heresy, and that no other coach could possibly do any better, but surely when so many players underperform compared to their past exploits at different clubs and under different coaches (and we can add the likes of Newton, Godwin, Solomona and Langley to the backs already mentioned) it seems a pretty obvious conclusion to come to? I think you're setting up a straw man there, as well as falling into Eddie's 'Give me Bennett or give me death' mode of thinking. No one's claiming McNamara is the greatest coach in the game, but he most likely is the best available to us. Further discussion of this matter should probably take place someplace else.

Asim wrote: Maybe the coaching staff are just incapable of getting the best out of these players who are, after all, are actually quite good really? I know some think saying such a thing is heresy, and that no other coach could possibly do any better, but surely when so many players underperform compared to their past exploits at different clubs and under different coaches (and we can add the likes of Newton, Godwin, Solomona and Langley to the backs already mentioned) it seems a pretty obvious conclusion to come to? I think you're setting up a straw man there, as well as falling into Eddie's 'Give me Bennett or give me death' mode of thinking. No one's claiming McNamara is the greatest coach in the game, but he most likely is the best available to us. Further discussion of this matter should probably take place someplace else.

: Sun Dec 14, 2008 11:53 pm  

af wrote:

I think you're setting up a straw man there, as well as falling into Eddie's 'Give me Bennett or give me death' mode of thinking.

Yes I am demanding Bennett, and that we win every single game and competition that we enter.

I'm also remembering why there is no point even expressing certain opinion on this board anymore.

: Mon Dec 15, 2008 12:38 am  

Asim wrote:

Yes I am demanding Bennett, and that we win every single game and competition that we enter.

I'm also remembering why there is no point even expressing certain opinion on this board anymore.

Steady on. I'm certainly not trying to censor opinion - the BFMT was started because a signficant number of posters said they found it tedious and wanted it all in one place where it could be avoided.

Let's just take what you said

I know some think saying such a thing is heresy, and that no other coach could possibly do any better

... I think that's an unfair characterisation of the Mc-backers' position, and I think the debate has to be over whether any coach available to us could do better. Take Brian Mac, who is touted as a replacement despite showng no interest in the job - though generally agreed to be a good coach he has yet to draw persistent performances out of his squad to the extent they make the play-offs. Paul Sykes fared similarly under him as he did under SM last year, plenty of tries but plenty of errors as well.

I think you have a point that McNamara needs to start getting more out of the players, and that if he does not do so this year it will hurt his reputation further.

: Mon Dec 15, 2008 7:00 pm  

af wrote:

I think you might have ended up in a cardboard box mate.

cardboard? Poor quality? Liable to collapse under pressure? Now why would i choose something that describes steve mcnamara?

: Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:13 pm  

af wrote:

Steady on. I'm certainly not trying to censor opinion - the BFMT was started because a signficant number of posters said they found it tedious and wanted it all in one place where it could be avoided.

My comment wasn't aimed at the threads being merged, it was aimed at the (IMO) patronising tone taken by yourself, and a couple of others, when anyone dares to criticise McNamara or the coaching staff.

I'm sure there are a crazy minority who think that we should win every game 40-0, and who thinks Wayne Bennett should be coach, but that's all it is a very tiny minority, most of would probably just like some fairly simple things like watching a team out on the pitch who look to have some idea of what they are supposed to be doing, maybe a discernible gameplan.

They'd like players to play to something like the best of their ability for the majority of the season, occasionally surpassing usual standards when it matters. They'd like players on their team to not make the same mistakes week in, week out with no sign of them being eliminated, they'd like players who make a large amount of such mistakes not to be rewarded with long contracts, they'd like to watch a team who look capable of playing for eighty minutes not just fifty or sixty (if that).

They'd probably like the coaching staff to take a little responsibility from time to time when things don't go well and not continually whine about how it's the fault of the officials/weather/man on the moon/the bigger kid in the playground.

Unfortunately anyone who has watched this team over the last couple of years can't really say hand on heart that they see this, and the condescending nature of posts claiming people who have very valid criticisms along the lines of "you would only be happy with Bennett" is particularly grating, while it may not be directly censoring opinion there's no doubt that trying to make posters look irrational and stupid has a similar effect on what they can be bothered to write.

af wrote:

... I think that's an unfair characterisation of the Mc-backers' position, and I think the debate has to be over whether any coach available to us could do better. Take Brian Mac, who is touted as a replacement despite showng no interest in the job - though generally agreed to be a good coach he has yet to draw persistent performances out of his squad to the extent they make the play-offs. Paul Sykes fared similarly under him as he did under SM last year, plenty of tries but plenty of errors as well.

I think that's a particularly unfair comparison to make, doesn't Brian McDermott work with the smallest budget in SL? (Silly me, forgetting that only the Bulls play to the salary cap and everyone else fiddles it through their rich benefactors). I've watched more than enough SL games over the last few years to know that Paul Sykes underperformed last year compared to how he has in recent years, which is a shame because I thought he'd be a very good signing (and hope he still might).

It surprises me to hear how you often talk of the Bulls coaching job, as if it is the most awful job possible in Rugby League. No-one is saying that the conditions at the club are perfect, or were when McNamara took over, but you seem to dismiss the possibility that any coach could do better than McNamara has which, to be honest, is not a lot. Even in the unlikely event of a new crop of junior players all turning out to be world beaters, the things lacking in the first team at the moment don't give me any confidence that the current coaching set-up would be capable of utilising and developing them properly.

Any coach taking the job at the time McNamara did would have no doubt been given the same remit of a refocus in aims in terms of more youth development, but for some reason there seems to be a consensus among some that McNamara, a man with no proven record of doing such a thing in the past, was the only person capable of implementing this. It is impossible to know how any coach you could name would have done in the circumstances, but with the resources available I stand by my opinion that we should be doing better than we have been.

af wrote:

I think you have a point that McNamara needs to start getting more out of the players, and that if he does not do so this year it will hurt his reputation further.

I'm a great believer that most coaches and managers have in sport have a shelf life, and it's usually about 3 or 4 years, with the odd notable exception (who tend to have enjoyed exceptional success by the standards), I think the team on the pitch have to show a hell of a lot more than they have done since about July 2007 for myself to have any real faith that McNamara really is the man for the job, and if there isn't how can anyone realistically say that he deserves any more time?

: Tue Dec 16, 2008 2:54 am  

Asim wrote:

My comment wasn't aimed at the threads being merged, it was aimed at the (IMO) patronising tone taken by yourself, and a couple of others, when anyone dares to criticise McNamara or the coaching staff.

That's pretty breathtaking, Asim. Off the top of my head I can't think of anyone who either patronises or indeed even criticizes anyone who "dares criticize McNamara or the coaching staff. Your position seems to indicate that we wll think everything at the Bulls is 100% perfect, when nobody has been saying that at all. It is extreme, relentless and unfair criticism that I object to.

Personally I have criticized ME's incessant "sack the coach, he is utterly useless, why can't everyone see it" mantra - because I think it's unfair and ridiculous, as well as done to death - but ME and RER pretty much have the floor to themselves on their anti-Mc obsession nowadays as long as confined to quarters.

Patronising? I have no clue what specifically or who that refers to, but being patronised is hardly in short supply on rlfans, it's pretty much a standard response isn't it?

Asim wrote:

I'm sure there are a crazy minority who think that we should win every game 40-0, and who thinks Wayne Bennett should be coach, but that's all it is a very tiny minority, most of would probably just like some fairly simple things like watching a team out on the pitch who look to have some idea of what they are supposed to be doing, maybe a discernible gameplan.

Which, finishing 5th, we presumably manage to a passable degree for more of the time than not?

Asim wrote:

They'd like players to play to something like the best of their ability for the majority of the season, occasionally surpassing usual standards when it matters. They'd like players on their team to not make the same mistakes week in, week out with no sign of them being eliminated,

Indeed. Except that I'd identify it more as a recurring problem than a constant one. You seem to overlook the many good weeks, as well as the good parts of several of the games we lost. But I don't think anyone is arguing that the season wasn't disappointing, even taking severe injury problems into consideration.

Asim wrote:

they'd like players who make a large amount of such mistakes not to be rewarded with long contracts, they'd like to watch a team who look capable of playing for eighty minutes not just fifty or sixty (if that).

See above, esp. re league position. You're grossly exagerrating, for effect.

Asim wrote:

They'd probably like the coaching staff to take a little responsibility from time to time when things don't go well and not continually whine about how it's the fault of the officials/weather/man on the moon/the bigger kid in the playground.

McNamara's comments on officials have been directed at specific and well-publicized instances where major ricks have mostly occurred, and been accepted widely as such. Even then, I don't recall him abdicating responsibility, on the contrary, I think he's invariably made it clear that he is not looking for excuses. What I've read, anyway.

Man in the moon? Playgrounds? I don't think I read those reports. Link?

Asim wrote:

Unfortunately anyone who has watched this team over the last couple of years can't really say hand on heart that they see this,

Gve over. Name someone who has been arguing that we are perfect, as you seem to imply. It's a silly position - to advance a "perfection" argument that no-one is claiming so that you can then deride this non-existent argument.

Asim wrote:

and the condescending nature of posts claiming people who have very valid criticisms along the lines of "you would only be happy with Bennett" is particularly grating, while it may not be directly censoring opinion there's no doubt that trying to make posters look irrational and stupid has a similar effect on what they can be bothered to write.

What's this . . you want us all to be really nice to each other? Or maybe you don't think that there is any condescension, michael-taking or whatever from the Sack Mac camp? I think I can judge the debate quite well from where I'm sitting.

As for condescension, put-downs and sarcasm - well, I'd put you near the top of this forum's charts!

Asim wrote:

I think that's a particularly unfair comparison to make, doesn't Brian McDermott work with the smallest budget in SL?

Maybe but there's no logical reason to say he is at this stage any better a coach than what we've got.

Asim wrote:

(Silly me, forgetting that only the Bulls play to the salary cap and everyone else fiddles it through their rich benefactors).

What was that again about the condescending nature of posts?

Asim wrote:

I've watched more than enough SL games over the last few years to know that Paul Sykes underperformed last year compared to how he has in recent years, which is a shame because I thought he'd be a very good signing (and hope he still might).

Again, a point which, broadly speaking, not many would argue against too vehemently; OTOH he played well enough (admittedly with not that great a number of competitors) for the GB coach to pick him for England, so perhaps you could at least consider that he might not have been quite as bad as you maybe think?

Asim wrote:

but with the resources available I stand by my opinion that we should be doing better than we have been.

nothing wrong with that - as long as you do think it's an opinion.

Asim wrote:

I'm a great believer that most coaches and managers have in sport have a shelf life,

But that's just a truism. 99% of all managers will sooner or later be sacked. The fact that the majority of them will end up getting a job managing somewhere else - indeed the fact they got sacked - shows that the coach getting sacked does not necessarily mean he can't coach. Any more than the coach NOT getting sacked means that he CAN coach. Indeed in many cases coaches get sacked for all sorts of reason unrelated to their intrinsic coaching ability. For example, a coach may be sacked simply because a club feels it must either do something, or be seen to do something, about a long losing streak (say) but as they can't sack the players, have no real choice but to sack the coach. But yes, very few coaches will not be sacked.

Asim wrote:

I think the team on the pitch have to show a hell of a lot more than they have done since about July 2007 for myself to have any real faith that McNamara really is the man for the job, and if there isn't how can anyone realistically say that he deserves any more time?

I don't know, as I don't know the future. Your question is a question that can only be sensibly asked at the end of next season, of anyone who then thinks McNamara then deserves an extension.

: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:29 am  

I'd agree with pretty much of all of that from FA (yes, Eddie ). But, yeah, the Bennett comment was glib and could be taken as being patronising and so I shouldn't have used it in reference to your post. I think it is an accurate caricature of a certain sort of fan, more widespread than you give credit for who thinks fifth is rock bottom, in spite of the recent examples of Wigan, Hull and Northern themselves in 91-92, so I should probably have saved it for one of them.

I stand by what I said about Brian Mac - I don't think it's unfair to compare breaking the top 3 for Bulls to making the play-offs for Quins. By that measure he has failed, but still the vast majority of observers, myself included, think Quins should keep hold of him because he appears to be doing as good a job as any possible replacement likely would.

SM's job performance has not in my opinion reached anywhere near the threshhold where the upheaval created by his departure (and that could be greater than many here think) would be justified by the likely gain. If people disagree with that, then it's up to them to argue rationally against it. I'll try to argue my side with as much civility as possible. And I know civility is important to you.