Chris Irvine ‏@Chrisirvine

As we've been writing for weeks @England_RL head coach Steve McNamara is to cross codes to become attack/skills coach at @bathrugby

To me he was average he made to many mistakes is biggest was playing chase, I said loads of times I would not have chase in my team and I would not have let a x druggy near my team, no matter how good people think he is he proved that with is up and maybe cost us the win against the AUSSIS we need to get a good no nonsense coach that can deal with players

Ultimately he failed, losing to Australia and NZ has to be seen as failure no matter how well we played. Especially at home.

Two votes for him being excellent? Must have been the man himself and the other must have been Hock not knowing what the word meant!!!

I've been very critical of McNamara in the past. He achieved little at Bradford other than presiding over embarrassing club records (e.g. first team to lose to the Crusaders, squandering a 30 point leads over Wigan in the play-offs and Catalans in the CC, Tansey-gate etc), and left a poor legacy. He signed and picked one of the worst backlines I've seen in SL - Halley, Platt, Sherriffe, Sykes, and Tupou - and before the money problems really hit. He had a track record for signing/picking journeymen players from other SL clubs: Finnegan, Jeffries, Nero, Tadulala, Worrincy etc, who were all picked regularly without showing much improvement. Mick Potter came in and turned Bradford back into a respectable team in his second year, but by that time the Bulls were a financial basket case.

With this in mind it was baffling why McNamara was chosen for the most important coaching job in English RL. That said, a few selection issues aside, McNamara's track record in the world cup was pretty good for me. He's successfully managed to recruit a healthy mix of SL and NRL players, and above all, the performances of the team against Australia and NZ were far superior to the efforts a British team have put in since before the inception of SL IMO. England were playing with more confidence and style than the last moderately successful 'safety first' team mentality we had under Noble. How much this is down to the coach himself is debatable, although it would be nice for him to stay for a few years to make sure the momentum of the gains made in the WC are not immediately squandered.

Average bordering on poor for me. Home advantage, best set of forwards for an age, should have done better. Not a go at Sinfield this but the 2013 world cup imo was a competition too far for him and Widdop along with Brough should have been our halves from the word go.

Kevin Sinfield smashes Shaun Johnson into the royal box, England are competitive in the final (as they were in Cardiff) and this poll looks a whole lot different.

Then it would be "good, despite being massively let down by some of his squad".

As it was, England won the games for which they were favourites (pretty much at a canter) and lost the ones for which they weren't

Andy,

It's a question of how good a job did he do, not how good a job might he have done if things had gone differently. He is judged on what he delivered, which wasn't any different that what you or I would have achieved and therein lies the issue. He delivered nothing to the role that a gobby layman (myself included) couldn't have done.

Actually, if I was head coach there is no way on this planet we would have lost to Italy and thereby we wouldn't have had the crap that followed.

I keep hearing about all these different things he put in place, like training camps and a pathway from the second string to the first team. Forgive my ignorance but surely these existed prior to his arrival? What would have been the point of the under 21s in the eighties and nineties. Did Reilly/Noble/Smith not bother with training camps or was this something that they had no clue about and therefore McNamara was actually light years beyond his peers (if he was how is he ending up as a rah rah skills coach rather than going onto a leading club role?

It took him till his last week in the job to realise, what everyone on this site knew for a very long time, that his team wasn't functioning. Now that is poor.

So it is very fair to say he failed.

The poster who said the line between good and poor came down to the semi final (and, actually, the last 20 seconds of the semi), is spot on. Had we got through, I'd like to think we'd have given the Aussies a better game than NZ did on the emotion of playing in a home final alone.

I think he did a lot of things well politically to put the 'team' in the best position to win (seems to have drawn more budget and resource out of the RFL than any previous international coach, and the team's preparation looks to have been second to none).

On overall squad selection, not sure anyone on here has the qualifications to critisise individual player selections, we've all got our own opinions on individual players / positions and that wouldn't change regardless of the coach.

However, to not know your preferred half back combo until the semi-final of the World Cup having had 3 years to prepare is criminal. That, in itself, is enough for me hope he moves on.

No it isn't fair at all. If all you want to know is the result, then that is a completely different subject. I think this thread is probably meant to be about how well or badly McNamara has coached the England team, as we can all look up the basic results in the paper if we don't know them.

I was at the NZ game and thought the peformance was in most respects excellent, and it was heartwarming to see England play that way, and for much of the game dominate NZ. An of course but for one rash headshot by George Burgess, we would have been playing Australia in the Final, on the back of the best overall England team performance I can remember for many a long year.

So in fairness, McNamara didn't do great, but surely he did very well to get us to peak at that level in that game? Bearing in mind those who have hobby-horses about different individual players will never be pleased if their pet didn't play, but such is coaching, few fans would ever agree on the single best team. My biggest personal issue with selection was, if you were always going to go with Widdop in the crunch game, why not select your halves to play together in the bigger games previously, so they can get a feel for each other's games. But then, he clearly had a plan with Chase, and I have no idea why Chase didn't play against NZ.

All in all in my opinion, and based significanty on how much I enjoyed watching England play at the level they did play in the NZ game, McNamara did a very good job, and he, and England, were unfortunate that we didn't do better.

Aardvark,

You can't stick a one line quote in and then argue against my points. The final line of my post was my summing up of the rest of the pointers.

He lost to feckin Italy!

Don't get mugged into believing they were strong enough to turn us over. No coach worth his salt would lose to a side when the differences in quality were so vast.

And as for the semi final. I totally agree it was England's best performance, probably since Melbourne when we won in the rain (Steady dancing around Meninga like he wasn't even there). But I would have expected every player to lift themselves for a WC SF with that crowd behind them, hardly his coaching genius (remember 10 minutes for Burrow and nothing for Ablett?). A quality coach would have used his bench correctly.

He failed mate. You or I could have used the bench better, motivation for a SF isn't required on such a day.

1. I can do what I like.
2. I'm not arguing against your points, I'm stating my opinion.


Indeed. An irrelevance, and an embarrassment to a small degree, but not relevant in the bigger scheme of things. How relevant would it be to you, or to the question of how well McNamara has done, for example, if England had won the World Cup?


I get that those who are unable to be unbiased always do this. If we win and win well, it is the team that did it despite the coach. If we play very well but get pipped, it was still all down to the team, and despite the coach.

But if we just lose, or lose badly, that is always and inevitably the fault of the coach.

That's not a very sensible way to view things.


Well, he clearly didn't, in the total way you infer. He failed to make the Final. He succeeded in us playing extremely well in the semi-final and all but making it to the big game. Which would have been deserved.


That is a silly view, with respect. I'm cool with all of us having our views as to what we could or would do, but you have no clue why theactual changes were made, who was or wasn't fit etc. It's a reasonable subject to debate, but you confident claim is just OTT nonsense.


I see. So, the most successful teams in the world give the coach a day off on Finals day, do they? Or not bother with a half time address? Hmm. news to me.

Also, motivation is just one of very many things needed from the coach before and during the game. But, if you're right, then your argument must, to you, absolve McNamara from the loss, as presumably you argue that the sole reason was NZ were that bit more self-motivated than us?

Agree with every word. The ones who say Mcnamara did a good job only seem to be referring to the NZ game. Mcnamara was in charge for 3 years as what about he rest of the WC tournament. We won't exactly brilliant in any of the games prior to NZ

So let me get this right, me saying he failed and you countering it with no he didn't isn't arguing against my points. If we had both started with, "In my opinion" then there is no argument but we both didn't so we are arguing.

How on earth am I unbiased? Don't forget the team are the ones on the pitch, yes the coach will have a hand in it and the shape of the team on the day suggested a strong platform but as you will know every one of those players were pumped up for the day so their own motivations would have helped.

We are still talking about the same man who was worse than useless at your club? I admire you being able to put that to one side, too much in my belief as you see something in him that I don't. As I said, I could have coached England to beat Italy and Ireland and Fiji and France. I wouldn't have needed to motivate them for the opener or SF, more bring them back down by calming influence as I am sure they were ready to explode such were the events.

And I could have drilled them with set plays until the cows came home so they understood how I wanted them to play but, and it is a big but, I would have worked out my best six and seven sometime in the three years before the tournament and worked with them. He made a horrendous choice (IMO) in playing Chase throughout that time. McNamara used a strong structured approach to play on the pitch, when you have Chase being interviewed after the Aus game talking about having to adapt his game to it, after 3 years of being in the team, something is very wrong. That is where the coach should be accounted for.

I am not blinded by loyalty to think he has been anything better than expected. You or I could have done what he has done and he has spent his life in the pro arm of the game whereas we are keyboard warriors debating this. That to me tells me all I need to know about McNamara. Not good enough.

I'm not arguing with you. At best we are exchanging opinions. I wouldn't waste my time arguing with someone who's not listening.


On the contrary I presumed you are biased, biased against McNamara. Just a feeling.




What? Are there people who do forget this? Personally, can't say I've ever found it confusing. Well, there was this one game at Odsal when the fog suddenly rolled in. But no, even then I don't think I forgot that the team were the ones on the pitch. I couldn't always confirm it with my own eyes, but even then, I never really doubted it.


Look, this is a total non-point, so give it up. Both teams will be "pumped up". Therefore this "pumping up" pretty much cancels out, wouldn't it be fair to say? One job of the coach is to make sure that being pumped up doesn't adversely affect performance, and to make sure that the adrenalin is channelled in the right direction, at the right time.


See, there'syour bias, right there. This thread is NOTHING about McNamara's performance as a club coach and anything he did or didn't do at Bradford surely has zero bearing on anyone's views on thsi thread. But not yours, I gather.


I admire your chutzpah, but with respect it is outrageously ridiculous for you to claim that you would have been able to coach an international team, or that the players would have had even a gram of respect for you. I refuse to address such a ludicrous proposition further.


He decided Chase would be scrum half and went with it. That is a decision any coach has to make. However the thread is not about Rangi Chase, but how good a job McNamara did. You can argue you wouldn't personally have picked Chase, but you can't argue that Chase isn't amongst the most talented half backs available and picking him, or any of them, is hardly something that is self-evidently "wrong".


You may be deluded enough to believe you could have. I'm not.


I'm no keyboard warrior, I do my best to stick to reasoned debate and argument. It doesn't always work. Nevertheless, as a (very) notable and distinguished player and a man who has both played and coached at the highest professional level in this country, he certainly knows a damn sight more about coaching than you or I and if you really think you could have done as well as him then I'm sorry, but you really do need to take a reality check..

But who's fault was it that Burgess was still out there when he could barely stand? I though all this technology was suppose to tell Mcnamara when his performance levels had dropped. I'm not a coach but EvenI could tell Burgess was shot, while we had a fresh Ablett twiddling in his thumbs on the bench.

We had an excellent SQUAD. To have a player sat on the bench in a game like that is criminal.

Daryl Powell, although a tremendous coach at Fev, needs to prove himself at a higher domestic level, before he is even worthy of a mention for England coach.
He may well be the guy to take charge at some point in the future, but not yet.

McNamara did ok but, Sinfield and Chase in the halves always looked poor and although Sinfield did ok, that's all it was, ok and Chase was mickey poor. Widdop looked twice the player that Chase was.

7/10 could do better

He decided Chase would be scrum half and went with it. That is a decision any coach has to make. However the thread is not about Rangi Chase, but how good a job McNamara did. You can argue you wouldn't personally have picked Chase, but you can't argue that Chase isn't amongst the most talented half backs available and picking him, or any of them, is hardly something that is self-evidently "wrong".

Aardvark,

It is the coach's responsibility to identify flaws in his squad. That it took him three years and he only awoke to the fact at the SF stage is a massive negative to McNamara. Using Chase as an argument in this thread is valid as I try to prove my point on McNamara.

If he is that good, as he is in your eyes, why isn't he getting bombarded with job offers from inside SuperLeague? The silence from the clubs is deafening.

And as for my point about him being rubbish at club level, look how well Mick Potter went after he took over, even with financial meltdown the players stuck by the coach and played for him throughout that time, even when he and they weren't getting money for it.

If I am biased against him you are surely the complete opposite and for the love of money I cannot understand why.

Or would be, if it was true he suddenly woke up one day and thought, "OMG, I should never have gone with Chase". Whereas in fact you have no idea if that's the case. McNamara said he picked the squad for the game with the combination that he thought was best for that game. Do you have any information that he is lying? Please share.


Except that I simply don't accept your premise that McNamara suddenly saw the light, as you would have it. I also point to the fact that the combination worked, and it and we did more than enough to have won.


You have no clue who he or his agent have spoken to, and as he has already been signed for a well paid job in Onion, it doesn't even arise as he's not available - I assume this deal was a done deal long ago, and doubt he has ever been available.


Yep, Potter never making the playoffs was a huge improvement, but again why are you doing your best to deflect the thread away from the topic of how good a job McNamara did for England? Are you having to privately concede that he actually did a decent job?


Where is my bias? If you want to discuss or oppose what I have said, do so, if you can. They are valid and perfectly arguable points, and, unlike you, I am sticking to the point.

I do notice though that you've quietly and wisely chosen to bury your ridiculous claim that you could have coached England as well or better.

But if he thought the Widdop/Sinfield partnership was the one to beat NZ, why didnt he give them game time against non opposition such as Ireland/Fiji/France. Don't tell me he chose "a team to beat Ireland" because Graham as stand off would have resulted in us beating Ireland. Those games should have been used for Sinfield &Widdop to gel if he thought that was the combination to beat NZ.

The fact he used Chase/Sinfield at every opportunity he has had, and then changed it before the game against NZ after Sinfield/Chase had very little impact on the tournament suggests to me he realised it wasn't working when a side gets a new half back, you always hear everyone talking about giving them time to gel. To then play a new combination in a WC semi shows incompetence from Mcnamara. We should have never been on that situation

My claim was that anyone could have done an equal job to him during the WC and anyone would have picked a side that could beat Italy. Not gonna let that one lie, it is the truth. Doesn't matter if the players like you or not, if you pick the right combinations you shouldn't ever lose against a team like Italy.

I assumed (but don't know) that there was more to Chase being dropped than was made public> If there wasn't, then I agree you'd expect them to be given game time on the face of it, but England clearly didn't suffer as a result of them not having had that game time.


Perfectly possible too, and if so, then what do you do? Stick with it even if for whatever reason it isn't working, or change it?


IF Chase was dropped solely because he wasn't playing well enough, what are you saying? Chase had mostly been playing out of his socks all 2013, are you saying McNamara should have somehow mystically known that come the WC Chase's form would go down the pan? How? Mystic Meg? How would it be "incompetence", exactly, not to be able to see into the future?

A coach's job is to deliver results in competitive games with the players at his disposal. Nothing more, nothing less.

Supposedly much better coaches that McNamara haven't got England/GB anywhere near as close to beating both Australia and New Zealand as they did in the World Cup.

How dare you come on here with your reasoned and sensible analysis, completely devoid of baseless opinion presented as fact. Disgraceful.

meanwhile, reports that McNamara has gone for an early Bath appear to have been exaggerated. He has been offered the job as assistant coach at Sydney Roosters, so the Roosters join a lengthening list of organisations and people who have strange delusions that he can coach a bit. Silly them. If only they'd asked one or two experts on the VT who know far better than mugs like one of the premier rugby league's premier clubs. I mean, what on earth would they know about it?