I appreciate i leave myself open to criticism for posting such thoughts but here goes another one.

Rugby League being such a localised sport filled with basically players and coaches who know each other inside out and given the fact we as a sport seem to relish this fact rather than looking to grow our knowledge and embrace new thinking I guess it is inevitable that successfull players from successfull teams seem to at least be given a shot at coaching.

In the John Monie book he lists or at least the forward list the number of players that have gone on to coach at the top level who played under Monie.

I am a huge believer in the theory that you are a product of your environment, and i think that the Bradford Legacy is very visable.

Wigan, Warrington and Bradford themselves all have coaches at all levels that did there apprenticships or were involved in the successfull period at Bradford, and all these team continue to falter to decieve despite signing on paper quality players.

The skill level of the 3 teams highlighted is poor and rather the emphasis is on the physical side of things. Wire look a huge side this year, having taken on the Bradford Reserve conditioner at the end of last year with Jimmy Lowes.

Wigan have Noble and Foreshaw who cut there teeth in the Bradford era of success/laying the foundations of success, and Bradford themselves have McNamarra and another conditioning coach who came through the same system.

The teams on paper are far superior to the performances on the field, they all play a very basic game plan, and rely on an individual spark to fire them.

I think the Brian Smith and Bradford legacy is evident today and harming the 3 teams in question.

I would also add i do not think Brian Smith is a poor coach, he simply identified a way for the Bradford team to succeed and played to it, he is not limited to this coaching style but those who learned the game under the systems and in the environment he created are.

A well constructed thought; can certainly see where you're coming from.

Well observed.

I suppose Harlequins under Brian McDermott could also be accused of the same thing.

Not seen enough of them to be honest.

I also find it interesting that the 2 teams that are the front runners in the League Saints and Leeds seem to shy away from this policy of recruiting explayers or people with a connection to the club as head coaches.

Leeds has Darryl Powell for a while, but it obviously didn't work out.

Exactly, it seems to me the clubs and indeed coaches that succeed posess the ability to evolve and develop and embrace new direction and ideas, those that cannot simply stagnate and in real terms regress.

Very good observation. Also the reason why I think we should move heaven and earth to get edwards. Plenty of identikit coaches around, but none with the passion and extensive multi-disciplinary knowledge of shaun.

The post match comments from Jimmy Lowes tonight could well have come from the , sorry i mean lips of Brian Noble tonight.


We have a group of little cloans running about SL pretending to be coaches.

Been saying this for a while - add in Karl Harrison who failed at Salford. We have wasted the legacy of Wigan as Farrell, Hanley, Edwards, etc are not involved in the game and the irony is that we have to turn to Bradford and St Helens coaching stock. Unbelievable!

Well imo RL is a simple game.

If you get enough firepower in the forwards, it will lay the foundation for the backs to shine.


Nobby realised this at Bradford and imo it still holds. Now executing this plan, especially under the artificial constraints of the CC is hard.


As RU if taken to the extreme could be won by a well drilled set of forwards on their own, so could RL.

Are our forwards, Wires or Bradfords well drilled? From what i have seen certainly not. I do not either think Bradford in there prime were either.

I may just change my mind about you Jon, i have read 3 or 4 posts of yours today which i have agreed on but this one more than most.

Well reasoned and something I have been talking today about, well similar lines anyway. Primarily about coaches being fast-tracked from successful teams and not having served apprentiships looking after various teams under various head coaches, regimes etc.

It's all too easy to install a 'fan favourite' or a household name and win some quick brownie points with the fans, but I think a coach needs to have served a rounded apprenticeship, be a student of the game and basically earned his shot at the big time. Cullen, Betts, Powell, McNamara, Lowes, Harrison have all been fast tracked into the (caretaker) head coach role and I think in each case have been exposed, and were not ready for the task. (I will concede that it's a moot point re Nobby in this group, but imho the root of the problems with us, which are a different thread are much deeper than one coach)

This is the real reason we are so very far behind the Roo's, no progressive thinkers and key coaches in the game.

Re: xBrettKennyx... Yes RL is a simple(ish) concept and yes the platform has to be laid in the forwards, as an old coach used to say, the fatties have to do the work so the posers can score their tries and look good.

Look at the Bradford board it could be a carbon copy of this, complaints about boring negative rugby poor skills basic errors etc etc etc.

You make some good points jonh and it can be no coincidence. All of these teams seem to make very basic errors and seem to try to play a style of rugby that doesnt even work. They try and play a forwards based game but their packs usually get dominated by the opposition. The game has changed and these teams forwards just look too cumbersome and slow.

McDermott has said this year it is his team and will reflect his style of play. against manly they threw the ball around a friendly accepted, against cas we went up the middle.

He has said he is going to play an expansive game- lets see. The team certainly isnt built around a Bulls mentality of the big 4 props thats for sure. Mac coached a Leeds I believe not the Bulls.

Not coming down today Alex BP?

I think this is a key point. When Bradford were in there pomp the skill level was generally centred around the 3 players, 6, 7 and 6. While the other players were not dummies they certainly were not highly skilled players, i wonder if the lack of skills coaching is something that they have brought with them.

Great analysis that, never thought about it like that.

Quite. When McNamara came in there was a lot of talk about us playing a more entertaining and expansive style of rugby. If anything we're duller now than ever.

Very good post.
Thought Bradford were entertaining when they had Henry and Robbie at half back.
We have become more entertaining this year. Against Wakey we were awful. Played ok at Hull and played good rugby v Cas.
With the win at Quins all our tries came from the backs.
How many tries have been scored by forwards compared to the backs?
Last two games Carmont & Ainscough have scored five tries between them I think.
Agree though with Jonh's post but had just got the feeling we were turning away from that style this year.

I was there.

Good post and fair observation.

Although I think it's imperative we employ as many British coaches as possible, IMO clubs all to easily give the job to a less experienced coach (Jimmy Lowes is a classic example) and when results don't go their way the board seem to scratch thier heads and wonder why. A player can win everything as a player, be a fantastic talent and a great persona to have around the club, however it's not often that this transpires into his coaching.

A player's coaching style is highly dependable on how he was coached as a player, expansive or one up? Keep it safe or employ risky plays? Wire, Wigan and Bradford play similar RL as jonh as already pointed out neither side are lavishing in success, and none are playing particularly well, despite the talent the team's in question has at thier exposal.

As I've stated, I'm all for British coaches but only when they are actually ready for it, it's all too often, in all sports not just RL, a player turns coach and is expected to work magic because of his higly successful career, and when he inevitably get's the sack he is never seen again.

I personally think that a coach should serve with at least 2 clubs in the UK and maybe 1 in Australia prior to even being considered a realistic candidate for a headship.

As you know I've advocated for years now that we should send our better young players on a years scholarship to Australia.

Maybe we should do the same with our reserve team / academy coaches.

Any thoughts?

Quite a few do head over under there own steam as a bit of a working holiday type do but i would like to see it be more formal.

Nigel Wright spent some seriuous time over there and he says it was the best developmental experience of his life regards coaching.

To be fair i do not think Australia is a must as such, apart from it exposes someone to a different environment.

Ideally I would like to see a coach work under a minimum of 3 SL coaches and spend sometime (a minimum of 2 seasons) in the lower leagues where actuall "coaching" of players has to be done. You are a product of your environment and I think exsposure to different environments and situations can only round off the end product.

I have said on a few times i dislike the way so few British coaches get the sack and that is them gone usually from a SL job again, its very rare that they make a comeback. A good coach may fail at a club, but if they learn from it and where they made mistakes it can be the best thing for there personal development, often sadly they never get a chance to prove it.

1 thing is certain in coaching, the minute you take a paid job the clock starts ticking to you being given your P45, very very rarely does a coach not get sacked at any level, how you deal with this and what you take from it is crucial but all too often they are cast out as lepers almost with no chance of a return.