Re: The SHAMEFUL Treatment of Brian McDermott : Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:01 pm  

Hi Fat Boy (that sounds so rude!!) - haha, no I'm not connected to the Club, just a regular home-and-away fan like most of you guys. It's fair to say that I do have a lot of faith in the management though!!

G1 - thanks for your reply. I think Mac was right to phase Zak in over last year - I've said it loads in this thread but I don't agree with bringing kids through too quickly and while he had the physical experience from Fev, he would have needed to adjust to a new Club and very different environment, so spending a bit of time in the 20s was right as far as I'm concerned. Obviously I also mention in my initial post how well Ablett's done at centre so with his experience it was a decision McDermott could afford to make. Dont' forget Zak was also injured for 6 weeks at the back end of March.

I think Burrow is a difficult subject but I can't agree that the decision to play him off the bench was regressive. I really believe that if he's playing scrum half, he can create some of the magic we're used to off the bench where he can't when he starts, and again at hooker he can control the game and spot the gaps better. The last three games he's started at scrum half were Warrington away on Friday, Saints away and the CC semi-final against Cas last year - the semi-final was a terrible game, as was Saints away, but on Friday, we got a lot better on 30 minutes and had a really good last 50. It's no coincidence that this was when Lunt was subbed for Ward, and Burrow switched back to hooker.

Re: The SHAMEFUL Treatment of Brian McDermott : Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:08 pm  

rhinowinorlose wrote:

Hi Fat Boy (that sounds so rude!!) - haha, no I'm not connected to the Club, just a regular home-and-away fan like most of you guys. It's fair to say that I do have a lot of faith in the management though!!

G1 - thanks for your reply. I think Mac was right to phase Zak in over last year - I've said it loads in this thread but I don't agree with bringing kids through too quickly and while he had the physical experience from Fev, he would have needed to adjust to a new Club and very different environment, so spending a bit of time in the 20s was right as far as I'm concerned. Obviously I also mention in my initial post how well Ablett's done at centre so with his experience it was a decision McDermott could afford to make. Dont' forget Zak was also injured for 6 weeks at the back end of March.

I think Burrow is a difficult subject but I can't agree that the decision to play him off the bench was regressive. I really believe that if he's playing scrum half, he can create some of the magic we're used to off the bench where he can't when he starts, and again at hooker he can control the game and spot the gaps better. The last three games he's started at scrum half were Warrington away on Friday, Saints away and the CC semi-final against Cas last year - the semi-final was a terrible game, as was Saints away, but on Friday, we got a lot better on 30 minutes and had a really good last 50. It's no coincidence that this was when Lunt was subbed for Ward, and Burrow switched back to hooker.

......but do you believe in the return of grandad Senior....and gay marriage ?

Re: The SHAMEFUL Treatment of Brian McDermott : Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:46 pm  

rhinowinorlose wrote:

Tvoc – Again, the stats don’t tell the story. Of the 10 rankings you give, 5 of those were outside the play-off places, so not as good as you would have me believe.

The stats are not intended to tell the whole story but they are included here for readers to interpret in their own way.

I think the actual phrase I used was "a couple of above average finishes, a couple of below average finishes but overall pretty consistently somewhere in the mid-pack."

If you have a specific problem with that terminoligy then perhaps you'd care to share it?

The list, I think, is factually accurate and covers London's pre-McDermott record covering the 1996 to 2005 seasons inclusive. They give a quantifiable indication of where London were finishing the Regular Rounds before McDermott's influence was brought to bear on the club - and can be compared with those that followed McDermott's arrival. For the record you're saying 5 of those finishes were outside the play-off positions. It's actually 6 plus there were no play-offs in 1996 and 1997. London have so far made the play-offs in 2003 and 2005 - but they failed to do so under coach McDermott's four and a bit years at the helm and that despite the play-off grouping being extended from six to eight clubs for 2009 and 2010.

rhinowinorlose wrote:

McDermott’s first season was in 2006 (albeit not a full season), but the Club began to undergo major changes from as soon as 2007 with Ian Lenagan retaining his London shares and yet becoming owner of Wigan. This would suggest to me that Mac did not perhaps have the backing to build the team that he would have liked as no financial investment was made. Several of their key players, such as Henry Paul, were allowed to leave the Club and were never replaced, and then in addition to this they had a number of injuries to key players such as Henry Fa’afilli.

Sometimes life is tough. I get the impression you don't follow the 'no excuses' mantra. Did Fa'afilli ever play a game for London/Harlequins RL, IIRC he was off to play RU without ever lacing a boot for McDermott?

rhinowinorlose wrote:

With all the success we’ve had over the last 8 years, I am confident that the Club will continue to invest in our team, so the coming years do not concern me at all.

The last eight years don't particularly concern me anymore, it's the direction it's currently heading in that's the issue. It also appears to concern the CEO (who at least is beginning to question attitudes within the players), the coach and the players themselves if the regular soundbites coming out of Headingley are to be believed.

rhinowinorlose wrote:

In terms of the 2011 fixtures against Warrington, Wigan and Saints that you quote, I have to admit disappointment in you. The results against Warrington at home and Saints away certainly add some drama to your statistics but we played really well against Wigan at home, losing only in the dying minutes, and we should have beaten them away when Danny McGuire scored (Stuart Cummings publicly admitted that this try should have been awarded). We were also very competitive in the Saints game at home for about 60 minutes, but again a disappointing last 20 lost it for us. We may have lost to Warrington twice in the League, but our performance in the play-offs was outstanding; we won when it mattered. I’m going to repeat myself here tvoc – the stats do not tell the story.

That will probably come as news to record keepers everywhere.

I agree with Cummings that video ref Ganson made a harsh call on the interpretation of the kick/knock on but IIRC with 9 minutes remaining the awarding of the try wouldn't have guaranteed the reversal of the result as you imply here. It may have but it equally may not have as Wigan chasing the game would have approached their remaining sets with a different mindset just as they had done at Headingley earlier in the season.

The point, as I'm sure you'll appreciate, is that under McDermott Leeds are recording fewer wins (on average scoring fewer points while conceding more) when compared to the final season under McClennan - when facing their major competitors for honours. That really ought to be a concern to the powers that be (even if not a concern to some fans) as they will not be able to avoid, lets say, a Wigan in the play-offs every year as they were able to do in 2011. McDermott's Leeds record V Wigan is now Draw, Loss, Loss, Loss, capitulation and perhaps even more of a concern is that since Maguire changed the culture of the ex-Central Park club Leeds have won only two from the last ten (with one draw) and those two by a cumulative points advantage of 3. By comparison the losses (bar the previously referred to McGuire 'No Try' game) Leeds haven't really been anywhere that close on the final scoreboard.

I'd hoped those days were behind Leeds but they have returned. Whether they remain long term is in Leeds' hands. Inaction is not the answer. What any serious club requires first and foremost is a top-class head-coach - one that the players can understand and follow. Not convinced that Brian McDermott can take the club forward, no matter how many 'lucky draws' his team benefit from.

Re: The SHAMEFUL Treatment of Brian McDermott : Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:59 pm  

rhinowinorlose wrote:

Hi Fat Boy (that sounds so rude!!) - haha, no I'm not connected to the Club, just a regular home-and-away fan like most of you guys. It's fair to say that I do have a lot of faith in the management though!!

G1 - thanks for your reply. I think Mac was right to phase Zak in over last year - I've said it loads in this thread but I don't agree with bringing kids through too quickly and while he had the physical experience from Fev, he would have needed to adjust to a new Club and very different environment, so spending a bit of time in the 20s was right as far as I'm concerned. Obviously I also mention in my initial post how well Ablett's done at centre so with his experience it was a decision McDermott could afford to make. Dont' forget Zak was also injured for 6 weeks at the back end of March.

I think Burrow is a difficult subject but I can't agree that the decision to play him off the bench was regressive. I really believe that if he's playing scrum half, he can create some of the magic we're used to off the bench where he can't when he starts, and again at hooker he can control the game and spot the gaps better. The last three games he's started at scrum half were Warrington away on Friday, Saints away and the CC semi-final against Cas last year - the semi-final was a terrible game, as was Saints away, but on Friday, we got a lot better on 30 minutes and had a really good last 50. It's no coincidence that this was when Lunt was subbed for Ward, and Burrow switched back to hooker.

I can't help but read your opening statement in a camp voice in my head.

Regarding your point against bringing youth through two soon I don't fully agree with. I think each person should be judged on a individual basis depending on their physical and mental development. Some kids are ready
For first team action sooner and shouldn't be held back because "we don't play them regulary till there 20" attitude. I am not a expert
So I will go with decisions made by the coaching team who are more qualified

On McDermott people are entitled to their opinion on him. Last Season I was critical and probably said things in the heat of the moment. I have learnt my lessons and tried to be more patient and not personal against him, I feel he at least earned the right to be given time last year and so I have tried not to be too critical. I think most people who are making these comments are doing so after or during a poor performance. Which i can understand. It passion and they are upset by poor performances.

Re: The SHAMEFUL Treatment of Brian McDermott : Wed Jun 13, 2012 9:41 pm  

Hi tvoc - where I mention Fa'afili is that someone of that experience will feature massively in your pre-season plans, so when, as you rightly say, they never even get to play for you, that has a big impact on your team and your season. I don't ever believe in 'no excuses' (though I do think excuses only get you so far), and at a Club like London which struggles to be self-sustaining due to lack of interest in the area, financial backing is massively important to the formation of a decent team.

I think that the success over the last 8 years has shown the desire of the management to build and maintain a competitive, winning team, so when I say I'm not concerned, this is because I believe they will get it right in time for us to be better next year (at the latest).

I beg your pardon saying we lost against Wigan at home last year, of course we drew, but this only assists my point further. I agree that McGuire's try may not have determined the outcome of the away game, but I think you appreciate what I'm saying, which is that the performances were a lot better than the stats you selected show. If we hadn't won the League last year I would probably give more credit to the 6/43 games that you are quoting, but I still don't think you are fair to use these six games only. You also say we avoided a Wigan in the play-offs last year, but are using Warrington, whom we played and beat, as one of the three teams we need to be using as a benchmark. We also beat your other benchmark team, St Helens, in the Final. You're also discussing the Maguire era, with one of those years being played under McClennan not McDermott, which points the finger at the players more than Mac.

Like I say, I think the last 8 years has shown the desire of the Club to win, so I don't worry about inaction. I also have to ask how you KNOW that the players don't understand and follow McDermott.

Ferdy - I don't think I suggest at any point that we should wait until a player is 20 to play him regularly (I certainly don't disagree with Stevie Ward getting a few games!), sorry if I've given that impression. If you read through my earlier posts my focus has been on being mentally and physically ready, and like you I think this varies from player to player.

Re: The SHAMEFUL Treatment of Brian McDermott : Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:10 am  

I'm pretty much in agreement with Ferdy - I went off a bit too quick against BM last season, so am a bit wary of having too much of a go this year.

The problems within the club - and nobody can say a 50 point loss at home with a close to full-strength team followed by a just as p*ss poor first half performance the next game aren't suggestive of BIG problems - are a combination of coach and players. No matter how much people might want to make big changes to the squad quickly, its very hard to do, likely to be counterproductive in terms of whatever team spirit exists, and to be frank the lists of players on other threads are hardly inspiring anyway.

That leaves the coach. BM has to either really stamp his authority on the team or go. IMO he'll be given to the end of the year to oversee a miraculous turnaround, but if it doesn't happen won't be here next year.

Regardless of whoever the coach is, its clear that the attitude of some players needs to change. Losing by 50 at home to anybody is simply unacceptable unless you have almost your entire first team out. I'd be more impressed with the players' attitude if they actually DIDN'T say anything to the press - the whole "we know we didn't perform, we're working hard in training, we have the ability to sort it out" mantra is pathetic TBH seeing how they've been saying it for half the season and seem if anything to be getting worse not better.

GH agrees IMO - just as he was obviously upset by the CC loss to the Wire. If I were betting, I'd go for CC semi exit and failure in the play-offs, followed by BM's departure and one or two biggish name signings for next year to placate the masses. Possibly a good job I don't bet, as I can also convince myself the exact opposite is possible.

Re: The SHAMEFUL Treatment of Brian McDermott : Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:03 am  

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

I'm pretty much in agreement with Ferdy - I went off a bit too quick against BM last season, so am a bit wary of having too much of a go this year.

The problems within the club - and nobody can say a 50 point loss at home with a close to full-strength team followed by a just as p*ss poor first half performance the next game aren't suggestive of BIG problems - are a combination of coach and players. No matter how much people might want to make big changes to the squad quickly, its very hard to do, likely to be counterproductive in terms of whatever team spirit exists, and to be frank the lists of players on other threads are hardly inspiring anyway.

That leaves the coach. BM has to either really stamp his authority on the team or go. IMO he'll be given to the end of the year to oversee a miraculous turnaround, but if it doesn't happen won't be here next year.

Regardless of whoever the coach is, its clear that the attitude of some players needs to change. Losing by 50 at home to anybody is simply unacceptable unless you have almost your entire first team out. I'd be more impressed with the players' attitude if they actually DIDN'T say anything to the press - the whole "we know we didn't perform, we're working hard in training, we have the ability to sort it out" mantra is pathetic TBH seeing how they've been saying it for half the season and seem if anything to be getting worse not better.

GH agrees IMO - just as he was obviously upset by the CC loss to the Wire. If I were betting, I'd go for CC semi exit and failure in the play-offs, followed by BM's departure and one or two biggish name signings for next year to placate the masses. Possibly a good job I don't bet, as I can also convince myself the exact opposite is possible.

The problem with the "biggish name signings" is that by then (yet again) it will be too late. Still, it gives GH an excuse for the customary all expenses paid trip down under.

Re: The SHAMEFUL Treatment of Brian McDermott : Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:00 am  

Hi BrisbaneRhino - you make some really good points, and I agree for the most part. It probably won't come as a surprise to you though if I say that I think it would be a real shame if McDermott was to leave at the end of the year, and would hope that with the support GH gave him last week, that that won't happen. I think we've seen it a lot in football where management thinks that sacking the coach is a quick-fix, but often the teams that have done this fly through coaches and end up shelling out huge sums of money because they haven't really addressed the problem, and of course St Helens will have now had three different coaches in as many years and they only sit fourth in the table, four points ahead of us, who have a game in hand. They're already out of the Challenge Cup so unless they win the Grand Final, I can't see how they will be any better off than us by the end of the year whether we win or lose the League.

Wigan clearly was exceptionally poor as was our start at Warrington, but I thought the last 50 minutes was a step in the right direction. I said in an earlier post that I think the problem with some of the lads is more desperation than just having a bad attitude (I know you don't say they have a bad attitude), and I'm sure that if we can build on that last 50 at Warrington and play well on Monday and then again against Cas, that will slowly start to go away. I don't think we need any huge changes to the squad (when I say that, I mean that I think the likes of Sinfield, Peacock, McGuire, Burrow, etc will come good for us), but I would like to see us sign a Buderus-type person - I think that would lift everybody; in the changing room, on the field and in the stands.

I totally agree with you about the players speaking after the game - I don't mind if you train badly in the week, just perform come game time!! I think the Challenge Cup semi will be a real test of their mettle and we can't doubt how much they want to finally win that trophy, but it will again come down to whether we play with desperation or composure! I would also really hope that we don't just sign big names to placate the masses - whenever anyone says that the names "Bradley Clyde" and "Brett Mullins" pop into my head!!

Re: The SHAMEFUL Treatment of Brian McDermott : Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:53 am  

rhinowinorlose wrote: I would also really hope that we don't just sign big names to placate the masses - whenever anyone says that the names "Bradley Clyde" and "Brett Mullins" pop into my head!! That's really spooky! Whenever someone says Brian McDermott....THIS pops into my head!!

rhinowinorlose wrote: I would also really hope that we don't just sign big names to placate the masses - whenever anyone says that the names "Bradley Clyde" and "Brett Mullins" pop into my head!! That's really spooky! Whenever someone says Brian McDermott....THIS pops into my head!!

Re: The SHAMEFUL Treatment of Brian McDermott : Thu Jun 14, 2012 1:30 pm  

rhinowinorlose wrote:

Hi tvoc - where I mention Fa'afili is that someone of that experience will feature massively in your pre-season plans, so when, as you rightly say, they never even get to play for you, that has a big impact on your team and your season. I don't ever believe in 'no excuses' (though I do think excuses only get you so far), and at a Club like London which struggles to be self-sustaining due to lack of interest in the area, financial backing is massively important to the formation of a decent team.

Yes because who plays on the wing is of absolute paramount importance to the functioning of the team. People can talk about the neccessity of having a quality spine - full-back, half-back, hooker and an awesome foursome to carry you forward until the cows come home but without a good winger to score a few tries they are pretty much pointless.

I entirely take your observation that investment is vital but do you take mine that so too is good coaching to get the maximum out of whatever you are given to work with? The uncomfortable fact remains that London's league position worsened under four and a bit seasons with McDermott as he took them from a mid-table challenger to play-off qualifing no hopers. There was a time when coaches built their reputations on leaving a club in a better position than when they joined it. Not neccessarily in terms of trophies (not every team/coach is in that position), it could be in terms of structure, professionalism, performance etc. Perhaps McDermott did that it's not always easy to tell but sport tends to be viewed from the outside as a results based industry.

If McDermott found himself on the job market tomorrow I doubt there'd be a queue forming to enlist his services. I could be wrong but it would be interesting to find out.

rhinowinorlose wrote:

I think that the success over the last 8 years has shown the desire of the management to build and maintain a competitive, winning team, so when I say I'm not concerned, this is because I believe they will get it right in time for us to be better next year (at the latest).

I admire your blind faith but what evidence have you seen that the club has recognised the problems and are currently addressing the needs? Is it the extension of Carl Ablett's existing contract beyond doomsday?

rhinowinorlose wrote:

I beg your pardon saying we lost against Wigan at home last year, of course we drew, but this only assists my point further. I agree that McGuire's try may not have determined the outcome of the away game, but I think you appreciate what I'm saying, which is that the performances were a lot better than the stats you selected show.

The stats are an overview. They show Leeds becoming less competitive against the teams they need to be competitive against. They show in McClennan's final season Leeds still winning in 50% of the regular round encounters V such opponents. That's no longer the case, not even close to being the case.

rhinowinorlose wrote:

If we hadn't won the League last year I would probably give more credit to the 6/43 games that you are quoting, but I still don't think you are fair to use these six games only.

Leeds didn't win the league last year they finished 5th. Leeds won an end of season 'knock-out' competition to determine the Champions from a ridiculously large and in parts undeserving field of entrants. It was a great feat, totally unexpected and anyone who seriously claims any different inhabits a peculiar blue and amber tinged world, IMO. But these things occassionally happen in sport - without being too specific - the rub of the green, the bounce of the ball, an intercept just after half-time, a missed tackle, a contentious referee's decision, a team not handling the pressure of being overwhelming favourites even with home advantage against a team they'd humbled twice in the regular rounds etc. It's a great concept .... it's sport ..... it happens ... now and again. It's unlikely to ever become a formula that will work year after year though.

6 of 43 ?

I presume the 43 is made up of last season and this' SL Regular Rounds to date?

Have Leeds not played Warrington, Wigan and St Helens home and away in both 2011 and 2012 now. While 12 of 43 is a 28% size sample when including all SL opponents it's realistically a 95% + sample of the teams Leeds will need to be competitive against when the trophies are being handed out.

rhinowinorlose wrote:

You also say we avoided a Wigan in the play-offs last year, but are using Warrington, whom we played and beat, as one of the three teams we need to be using as a benchmark. We also beat your other benchmark team, St Helens, in the Final.

Leeds (thanks to agent St Helens) did avoid the team they were unable to beat in three meetings last season. Leeds did avoid the team in the play-offs they have never beaten in a 1st grade final. Leeds did avoid a team who McDermott has thus far never coached a Leeds side to beat, (although somewhat ironically he found himself in the winner's circle quite often when London/Harlequins played them.) Perhaps they will get a 'lucky' draw again this year, fingers crossed eh. I imagine that technique has made it's way in to the Leeds CEO's manual by now.

rhinowinorlose wrote:

You're also discussing the Maguire era, with one of those years being played under McClennan not McDermott, which points the finger at the players more than Mac.

Not sure I follow your logic as it's a similar squad of players under different coaches.

Leeds with McClennan managed to beat Wigan even in 2010 after Maguire had arrived. McClennan left Leeds with a 50% record V the cherry and white mob and an average result of 19-19. Leeds with McDermott have taken 1 point from a possible 10 (10%) and an average result of 16-29 by comparison.

By way of historical comparison: Leeds Coaches V Wigan SL Era

Graham Murray - 63% (Avg Rst 15-14)
Tony Smith - 57% (Avg Rst 27-16)
Brian McCennan - 50% (Avg Rst 19-19)
Daryl Powell - 40% (Avg Rst 24-29)
Dean Lance - 33% (Avg Rst 13-27)
Brian McDermott - 10% (Avg Rst 16-29)
Dean Bell - 0% (Avg Rst 15-40)

rhinowinorlose wrote:

Like I say, I think the last 8 years has shown the desire of the Club to win, so I don't worry about inaction. I also have to ask how you KNOW that the players don't understand and follow McDermott.

I don't I only get to observe how they perform on some match-days and compare that level to what they are capable of when they switch on. Coaching is a combination of player development and man management. The players have to want to follow the leaders. They know when they are being short-changed and I imagine so do some of the fans.