Maybe if someone had a pair they could accept calling it badly wrong and in the most shrilling tones for 4 and a bit years with a tad more grace.

Tut tut, ME, nothing to say so back to the personal attacks as per usual. Poor form, but you always revert to type. This is your third consecutive post with personal insults aimed in my direction. It is good to know my logic upsets you so much you are lost for a civilised response.



Sadly it wouldn't matter if we did, as I said, even if McNamara won it for 30 years this would make no difference in the slightest to his detractors. But you are, of course, right. More to the point would be how England plays in the Final. It could (just for example) be a titanic struggle with brilliant rugby from both sides and we could lose by a drop goal in the last second. The entire performance would be childishly but inevitably dismissed by some as irrelevant, and useless.

I actually sort of understand that; after all the years of abject failure and frustration, I know and share the feeling that we simply have to win, and nothing else will do, but to the fair-minded who can assess a performance objectively, we could lose but still put up a clearly very well coached display, as opposed to some of the capitulations of the past.

Thus finding a way to win against a team which is without doubt the world's best would I think be a definite proof of coaching ability; but the mere losing to a higher class squad would not in itself prove anything. It would be how we played.

"Chill"? How strange? Why would I not be chilled? There's only one person ramping up the personal jibes, and it's not me, I only wonder about your motives in festooning the thread with this [iad hominem[/i crap. It's of course your call, but don't pretend you're not doing it:















Actually, I'll delete the last one from the list, not that you didn't make it but as it was bloody funny.

Thanks!

Don't think the compliment gets you off the hook though.

Meh, you didn't know it was funny

You talk. I listen.

Get a room.

A good coach can take an average group of players and make them better. Which Macnamara (and to be fair, Potter) impressively failed to do at the Bulls. To take a good bunch of players (ie England) and make them play well is a given. There is enough experience in that England team to enable them to coach themselves. It would have been a major surprise if the second best team in the 4 team (3 really) competition had not made the final.
But I am sure it's all down to Steve's superior coaching.

Interesting analysis.

So, following your analysis, you would go along with that school of thought that holds that Noble's success at Bradford was down to him having a good bunch of players (indeed, about as good as they came, many would say, especially the 2003 crop?) who were effectively able to coach themselves?



Although surely the same logic should have held when he was the GB coach?

I'm sorry but all this crap about a team of good players "being able to coach themselves" really is just so much horse, it really is, and without wanting to be too rude, the poster must surely know it.

Anyone with even a modicum of sporting knowledge realises that a squad of good players becomes a winning team, even a great team sometimes, thanks to the coaching skills of the Wayne Bennetts, Vicente del Bosques, Alf Ramseys, Jack Gibsons, Bob Fultons, et al of this world. I think it's dumb beyond words to suggest each team would have "coached itself" to glory. It also displays an incredible lack of understanding of the role of a national team coach.

Club coaching and international coaching are very different. Club coaches have to be concerned with conditioning, maintaining performance across a season, negotiating salaries to fit within the cap, development of players, day to day contact with players, continuous pressure to name a few.

International coaches have to select the right players and blend them into a team for just a few matches.

Both roles are difficult and require and require good coaching skills. Bean good are bad in one role will not necessarily into the other.

This series Macnamara has done well up to press. If we remain competitive in the final I will be happy and it will show that for this international series Macca has coached well.

This from a poster who's spent the last half decade excusing Macnamara's dreadful results by telling us it was the Bradford players who couldn't ar3ed. When at Bradford it was the players fault but at international level it is super Steve's coaching that has resulted in one good performance against a decent side.

You're also wrong about giving SM credit. England played well against the Kiwis and he deserves the plaudits. If he beats the Aussies he'll go down as a successful England coach and good luck to him. As England coach he doesn't have to identitfy, sign and then improve players with potential, a skill he simply doesn't possess. He has picked the right team, give or take and I hope he's there taking the applause of the crowd on Saturday with the trophy but no matter how many pages you get this thread to run to you won't achieve your main aim, which is to somehow change history. Macnamara was a dreadful appointment at the Bulls and the record books will show that. You championed and defended him against all logic when those who you now seek to mock called it correctly. ME and plenty of others were proved right and you were proved disastrously wrong. To suggest that beacuse he's done OK with England changes what happened at Bradford or that you personally are vindicated in your poor judgement is bordering on the hysterical.

There is definitely something to be said for a good group of players coaching themselves, but it is very short term. I have been at clubs when a new coach has come in & pretty soon it was apparent they knew less than a number of the senior players; things went downhill after a few weeks. Similarly, players who (IMO) lacked character will not succeed at the highest level, as a coach, as they will not have the mental strength to deal with ego players or those who remember their coach as a player - Steadman, Cummins, Hay spring to mind.
You just need to look at NZ to see if an international group of players can coach themselves longer term. Gary Kemble suffered an embarrassing 3-0 whitewash in 2007 & lost the team, then his job. The following year a Kearney/Bennett combo won the WC.

Apparently it is horsesh*t according to FA. So you must be wrong.


3 or 4 games for example?

Fibbing is silly, but the ad hominem is noted. No change there.

You deliberately miss the team qualification that is taken 'as read' in a national squad, namely that to begin with, all are (within that country's resources) "good" players; i.e. the best the whole league can muster.

You also falsely state I "excused" the coach when (as you must known, clearly having been an avid reader, presumably in various disguises) that I principally blame the players. But I have never tried to make it childishly simple, there have been a number of very big factors at play at Bradford, and while I have (frequently) said the coach must take his share of the responsibility, you ignore this totally. It is I think now trite to say I was right, given the start the players have given our new broom coach, and given that we've just had our worst ever season under a man who by pretty common consent is a decent coach.


I made the pretty self-evident observation that the England team seems well coached. Now you are stupidly trying to say I think the players had nothing to do with it. Don't you actually read this drivel before posting it?


well, yes, so what is the rest of your whinge about?




Read this question slowly; to make it easier, I'll make it multiple choice. Is the title of my thread:
A. ..."McNamara can coach; - OR -
B. ..." McNamara can identify, sign and then improve players with potential"?

Have fun with your straw man.


Thank you for your breathtaking vista of my soaring ambition. But all I said to set you off on this bluster is to postulate that it seems, after all, there is evidence that McNamara can coach. You are the one who has decided this means I "want to change history". You just made it up.


The record books show a dreadful few years. McNamara played a big part in these years and cannot escape any blame nor would it be sensible to suggest he should.



So where I have "sought to mock" anyone, then? All my posts are on the subject. ME has indeed responded with personal abuse in my direction, but I haven't. You need to stop inventing things.

The debacle at Bradford was, as most know, due to a number of factors, of which the coach was just one (but one), and his departure and replacement did nothing at all to improve matters. This much is fact. Those who blamed everything on the coach were and remain plainly wrong, since otherwise we would have risen to greater things under Potter. You can't have it both ways, however hard you try.


... is a ridiculous suggestion, which again you have simply made up, and which I have never said, or even suggested. And it's not as if there is any shortage of things I [ihave[/i said that you could quote. So why make stuff up?


That's the weirdest bit. I simply don't feel I need any "personal vindication". I certainly haven't "claimed" any. What I did think was that McNamara can coach (we were, remember, his first job). That should not be upgraded by you into a claim I thought or think he was the next Messiah, or the equal of Wayne Bennett. His critics predicted that this was the worst appointment Engalnd ever made and his reign would be disastrous. Which if he really was a dud coach, it would be. The way England have performed demonstrates that he can coach. At international level, against decent teams. It does not make him Supercoach, or the best in the world.

And when I make this point all you want to do is launch into vitriolic personal attacks, inventing things I never said, when I wouldn't even think what I [ihave[/i said (and I have FFS explained it in detail in many posts) is even controversial.

So jog on, but if you must do this stuff, then you must try harder, as your effort was poor.

This would seem to show that a coaching combination of Kearney/Bennett worked, and made a huge difference; and that players either under a lesser coach or 'coaching themselves' as you put it,(have I understood that?) were embarrassed.

Are you saying that the coaching was not a huge factor, and that in fact the 2008 team 'coached itself'? I hope you're not, as that would I think be a nonsense.

I don't believe there any any examples of successful international teams which did not have a coach, but let the players "coach themselves".

ME has correctly stated that your points are ridiculous and completely OTT. The majority seem to back this up.

I have done no worse on this thread than you have done FA, that much is very clear indeed.

Some once said "players win games but coaches lose them". It generally is the coach that carries the can and the players that take the plaudits. However on this thread it shows it's not always as black and white as that.

Not fibbing, you have made this case, endlessly and this thread is merely an extension of it. You've obviously got very upset and if you feel that I've launched into a 'vitriolic personal attack' then you must refer the post(s) to the mods as I understand such is forbidden on the site. I won't post any more until we get the view of the mods on this.

FA should realise that if you are going to deliberately start controversial threads and then follow this up by provoking people into resposes then there is a very good chance that people may wish to have their right to reply that he will not agree with.

It is curious why he actually got what he wished for at the start of the thread then comes out with all this "personal attack" nonsense.

Pointing out a post/thread is ridiculous or foolish is not a personal attack, it is an opinion.

See what happens when you deliberately go on the wind up FA?

We tried that but he snores really loudly and farts in bed. I had to leave the room and him alone in it.

He STILL managed to start an argument in the empty room though.......

I will simply say that I am not "upset", in the slightest, not even a bit. I assume you know this. Nor has anything I posted suggested I am. Post, don't, it's (obviously) up to you.


The latter is a statement of obvious. "Provoking" people into posting is a strange slant on it, though. In what sense do you use that? Surely, every post on every forum has been "provoked" by either the OP or subsequent posts? is this a revelation to you?

And as the poster who probably exercises "the right to reply" as much if not more than anyone, why would I have a problem with it? I know you don't like people challenging your views, but I love it, nothing like a good bit of rugby league banter. And it is hardly a question of "exercising a right to reply", is it? It's a public forum, ffs, your don't need to exercise rights to reply - you just type something on your keyboard, hit Enter, and - hey presto - up it pops!


Tiresome. It would be much better if people commented on the thread rather than go [iad hominem[/i but hey.


Agreed. But I'm not the one struggling to make the distinction.


Yes, people who can't construct a retort to an argument try invent a different one. So no change there, then. But TBF whilst I suspected that the thread would wind up Mac haters, that was incidental, it is still an accurate statement. That's probably what's funniest.

BTW to be clear, I repeat I'm not upset, not even mildly peeved. on the contrary, I am perfectly happy dissecting and demolishing these weird posts, it's what some call "fun".

Though it could in fairness be more of a challenge.

this is true.


Guilty.





=#FFFF80(but so do you)