The 1982 Aussies couldn't score if you had the ball, could they

Just to clarify things, I also brought up the wire example, in another thread, in responce to a point about if a new coach could change the fortunes of the same bunch of underperforming players. I feel the Wire example is a valid one;

Warrington for the first month of the season played 4 lost 4. Looked shambolic at times but decent in spells, and were putting in performances that you would not have expected looking at thier playing roster pre season. Just like us. They then changed coach to Tony Smith and since that point they have a 68% win ratio (pld 19 won 13, inc CC) which is almost identical to Huddersfields win ratio in third place (69% inc CC) Our current win ratio is 32% BTW. So although thier league placing is not too much distant to ours the form is vastly superior and is that of a top 4 side not a bottom four side.

So there is a very good argument IMHO that if Tony Smith had been in charge from day one and repeated the ratio all season Wire [icould [/ibe 3rd/4th as well as in the cup semi. That is a highly significant turnaround of performance from the same squad (one player exchage Gleeson for Mathers excepted) achieved on the face of it purely and simply by changing coach....nothing else changed as far as I am aware but I'd be happy to hear other reasons for the turnaround.

Im not saying we could have/should have had the same change or that the results would have followed similar patterns, but merely pointing out that you cannot say a change a coach [iwould not [/ihave any effect, as there is clear evidnece from within this season from wire that change [ican [/i and has had a positive impact. I'd also suggest that if Smith guides the club to the Cup Final that would pay back any cost involved in the coaching changes, and would wire fans agree the change in coach prompted the turnaround in performance? I dont know, but I'd guess yes.

Not saying its the answer for every club, or us, but it can clearly work IMO and should never be ruled out just on principle.

"Even I"? I hardly ever discuss Warrington - how come I've got form?



My point was that even if their form has improved they really aren't a role model for us, now are they? My god, up from 10th to 8th in the league - wow - yes, pedantically that is an improvement. It certainly is by NO means an improvement that might not have been acchieved anyway.
but is it the sort of "improvement" that would make our critics happy?



Are you saying we would be happy to be where they are? I mean, smartarrsed quips aside - REALLY? Because I don't really see that they are doing [ithat[/i much better than us and I certainly don't recall the critics ever saying the Bulls would be coached by an obvious god if he could get them up to 8th.

Which was his point.



I'm sending you a new sarcasm detector as yours appears to be broken.

That sums up all the points I wanted to make but much better! Well done.

I would, for one, be happy with their form, yes. And with a play off place.

I am not holding Wire up as an example of what we are aiming for, but merely pointing out (as argued much more eloquently by Duckman above) that you can not argue that there has not been an improvement in their performance since a change of coach. I'm not saying that it would work for us, its just a fact.

Ah, stats. Which can be made to look as if they demonstrate anything. All I will say is that if a 68% ratio shows a good coach, then 2006 (where we got 34/56 SL points) = 60.7% and 2007 (where we got 35/54 SL points) = 64.8%.
These stats, by the same token, would tend to strongly support an argument that McNamara can coach at least to a similar success ratio. Bearing in mind the latter is over a full season, and 2007 (if memory serves) included 4 fixtures against Leeds, it's a proof, rather than an argument. And the season before too, although he was only coach for part of it.

Leeds were champions in 2007 when we were unfortuante enough to play them four times. Using the same calcs their coach scored 37/54 in 2007 = 68.5% Does this compare OK with McNamara's 64.8%? I'd say so.

In case you think this is a defence of McNamara, it isn't. It's a statement of the facts, just to show that the stats you cite are not in reality a sign of a vastly superior coaching setup. We've pretty much been there, done that under McNamara.

In every season there will be a couple of exceptional wins such as those against Leeds & St Helens. Its also to be expected that there will be a couple of rank bad performances eg Wigan away, Wolves at home. Those should really be discounted.

The 7 games that we've basically thrown away suggest a more serious malaise and really cant be ignored.

I agree with the last comment, but absolutely not discounting the wins against Saints and Leeds. They make things worse, as they show what the team can do if it wants.

I doubt he can TBH. He is either a professional dunce or else he is a damn fine actor.

Either way, it looks stupid.

But isn't the argument about their win/lose ratio before Smith and after Smith?

Which is something like (I can't really be bothered to look so roughly):
Before: 20%
After: 68%

Thats quite an improvement.

Indeed. But if you read my post again you will note it was in argument for the potential positive momemtum a change in coach has given warrington, not an argument against McNamara;

Warrington 2009 under Jimmy = bottom 4 form.
Warrington 2009 under Smith = top 4 form.

They improved under smith, that was the point, not to hold up the wire coaching set up as the one we must have. This was not a one off magic trick and could be made to work elsewhere, this was the supplementary point.

That is why I showed the percentage stats as that is the only way we can compare like with like to demonstrate to people who don't seem to grasp the point that a 68% win ratio is better than Cullen or Jimmy managed, hence improvement, best shown by how many games a team wins.

And we have had upper 60% win ratios under McNamara you're right, which is why you wont be able to find a single post of mine that says he is not a good coach. You will also not find a post where I have called for him to go. But just because he's done a couple of times it doesn't mean he'll be able to do it again, just as one dismal season does not mean we cannot turn it around to a positive ratio next season.

Exactly.

and a cup run thrown in too.

Ad hominem, as per usual. Is that really all you can do?

All pretty fair comment, though you'd need to take into account that Warrington achieved over 64% in 2006, under Cullen, and that's over a whole season.

Also an explanation would be needed (though not from you, as you make a similar point) as to how Cullen himself took a fast-disappearing Warrington team in dire straits in 2002 and steered it clear of relegation. Pretty much what is being said this year although Cullen had that greatly added 'relegation' pressure. Was he a good coach then but became a bad one? Seems to be doing OK now.

What point are you making here? I really don't get it.
Warrington have improved under Smith. Warrington did ok in previous years, but not as well as us, but they had a different coach then. Warrington are out performing us this season. Noone is holding up Wire as something we are aiming to be, but they have improved with a new coach. This season.
Why are you arguing?

If we want to aspire to be like someone, it should be KR or Hudds maybe. Their coaches seem to have an "average" squad of players performing to a higher level than they should.

Why is that?

Why do I have to be making a point? Can't I just be having a conversation?

Everyone is pretty much outperforming us this season.

I think the people arguing are ones who seem to have some childishly simplistic view that if we could just sack the coach it'd be all right and we'd be Champions again soon just like the recent good old days.

We should not aspire to be HKR or Shudds at all. I am certain they aspire to be us (though not this year, but still, as a club, and probably for the majority of our team). We should aspire to gradually build a squad, based on a blend of youth, home grown talent and experience and cunning imports, to try to find the elusive magic formula of once again becoming one of the top teams. We should aspire to nothing less.

Where I differ from a lot is that I have always seen this as a project to be measured in years, and with absolutely no certain outcome. Golden years are hard to achieve, some clubs never have them at all, and no-one has a right to them.

It would be nice to think that you could keep your club in the top 2 or 3 forever, regardless of re-building, but it's not possible, never has been, never will be.

So either we have a plan and stick with it or we disrupt the plan for some short-term "Warrington level" mediocre improvement. Sure they're doing better - but could hardly have been doing worse. Might we get a temporary mediocre improvement with a new coach factor? Very possibly yes. Is there a point to having a temprary improvement from crap to mediocrity? None at all, especially if it means disruption and sacrificing longer term objectives. Do I want a "Warrington 2009"-style quick fix? No, not at all.

Would a change in head coach mean that would happen? I don't think it would. Any new coach would be working with similar constraints as McNamara and the board could stipulate that they require junior football to be given the same amount of consideration.

Thats my thoughts exactly.

Haven't Leeds and Saints changed coaches and still carried on the junior development.

Spot on. If Hood wanted to change coach he would. Whether its down to financial constraints or something else i don't know, but it wouldn't be too hard to find another coach who could work just as well or better with the juniors and the junior system.

Does anyone know when Rinaldi's fit anyway?

I'd say both Leeds and St had more mature junior development systems so the transition was probably smoother. We've certainly taken steps to put in place the systems (Medley into head of junior development when Stuart Barrow came in) so we could be in a position to do that but nobody really knows how much work the head coach is putting in to junior development. What it would do is any new coach would have to become familiar with the juniors and that might slow down their progression to the first team.

Saints and Leeds have certainly been doing it for longer than us. I suppose there will always be some unknowns such as how much time McNamara is putting into the juniors though we were assured at the fans forum that savings would be made in other places in the business to ensure that the football side of things weren't impacted. Hopefully McNamara isn't being forced to do two jobs due to financial constraints. As for familiarity with the players that wouldn't take long given that all games are recorded.

Yeah but given everyone who wants a new coach is pointing at the performance of the first team as the reason to change you'd expect that would be a priority for any incoming coach rather than reviewing junior games.