Re: Wellens, Hohaia, Lomax and Rush : Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:33 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

So WHEN is a coach a coach? I mean, don't ALL coaches emerge from the lower ranks without any SL or NRL experience?

What was Ellery Hanley when he took Saints to a Grand Final victory?

Probably when his contract job description says so, the only coach we have is an assistant one in K Cunningham. Rush is only operating in an "acted position" and is not legally a head coach.

Re: Wellens, Hohaia, Lomax and Rush : Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:36 pm  

Judder Man wrote:

Probably when his contract job description says so, the only coach we have is an assistant one in K Cunningham. Rush is only operating in an "acted position" and is not legally a head coach.

And a "legal" affirmation of his position would add what precisely?

Re: Wellens, Hohaia, Lomax and Rush : Sun Sep 30, 2012 12:57 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

And a "legal" affirmation of his position would add what precisely?

Well if we ended up at the bottom of the league and was sacked because of coaching deficiences, the courts would rule that he isn't a coach.

So why would we judge him on something he is not, unless people are looking at the "escape goat" route, then yes he is one and suffers the wrath of other coaches that are not up to the task.

Rush has been honourable in taking on the acting role in the first place, so in my opinion he deserves a bit of slack because not everthing is simply "Black and White".

Re: Wellens, Hohaia, Lomax and Rush : Sun Sep 30, 2012 1:00 pm  

Judder Man wrote:

Probably when his contract job description says so, the only coach we have is an assistant one in K Cunningham. Rush is only operating in an "acted position" and is not legally a head coach.

Keiron Cunningham is part time youth coach and part time physio in training or some such. He didn't actually have the right badges to operate as an open age coach when he took on the job of assistant coach to the first team whereas Mike Rush had all the right badges to be the head coach of the first team. Therefore, legally Mike Rush was the only one of the two who could operate as a head coach. Contractually clearly he could as well because McManus appointed him as a head coach, in an acting capacity which is simply a temporary position and not a lesser position.

Re: Wellens, Hohaia, Lomax and Rush : Sun Sep 30, 2012 1:06 pm  

Judder Man wrote:

Well if we ended up at the bottom of the league and was sacked because of coaching deficiences, the courts would rule that he isn't a coach.

No they wouldn't. He has his Level 2 coaching badge and therefore legally he is has obtained the minimum requirement to coach an open age team.

Re: Wellens, Hohaia, Lomax and Rush : Sun Sep 30, 2012 4:07 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

So WHEN is a coach a coach? I mean, don't ALL coaches emerge from the lower ranks without any SL or NRL experience?

What was Ellery Hanley when he took Saints to a Grand Final victory?

He never said he was a coach, he never asked to be a coach but he was asked to be a coach until the end of the season.

Well done mike, you did us proud.

Re: Wellens, Hohaia, Lomax and Rush : Sun Sep 30, 2012 5:09 pm  

Judder Man wrote:

Agree, the problem with some fans on here, they are judging Rush as a coach when he isn't one. He gets unfair criticism at times, KC has a lot of input into this temporary coaching set up yet there is not one single complaint towards him.
McManus made the decision to sack Simmons and he wouldn,t have done that without justification, if he was still here I reckon we would be outside the top 8 and still playing with 16 men.

I'm not having a go at Rush per se who did indeed very reluctantly do the best he could under the circumstances. For me the blame lies squarely with the players - if they'd just shut up and gotten on with the job they were paid to do instead of causing aggro and bad feeling (no matter how justified it all may have been) with Royce and underperforming in games under him then we would have been in far better shape than we are now. Royce wasn't ever up to the job of being Saints' coach, but he was still a sight better at doing it than Rush was ever going to be.

Re: Wellens, Hohaia, Lomax and Rush : Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:36 pm  

Lomax was pretty shaken up after the game just so people know. 22 years old in possibly the most pivotal and hard to master positions in the game what do people expect? A younger Thurston? Give him a break eh!

Mike Rush did superbly this season, won the games that matter to the fans (minus yesterday) and did nothing but good for himself at Saints. He deserves a big pat on the back and KC does too. I would've liked to have seen how they coped in the Grand Final next week but ill be going as a RL supporter and hoping that nothing cocks up the big night.

Re: Wellens, Hohaia, Lomax and Rush : Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:45 pm  

Judder Man wrote:

Well if we ended up at the bottom of the league and was sacked because of coaching deficiences, the courts would rule that he isn't a coach.

Which would add what precisely? You keep saying he isn't a coach. Fine. But even if we accept that - how does that affect us on the field?

If Rush signs his name in the big SL book of "Official Coaches" - do we suddenly become 10% better? Do we suddenly concede 10 points less per game?

I really don't see why it matters if Rush is "legally legitimized" (is there such a distinction, anyhow?) as it surely can't impact upon his coaching in any way.

Re: Wellens, Hohaia, Lomax and Rush : Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:55 pm  

Ande wrote:

Lomax was pretty shaken up after the game just so people know. 22 years old in possibly the most pivotal and hard to master positions in the game what do people expect? A younger Thurston? Give him a break eh!

I feel a bit sorry for Lomax really. He's not a number 7 yet we've played him there for two seasons because we have no-one else. He's done a decent job to be fair, but I've no doubt he'd flourish in a position more suited to his attributes. Eastmond really screwed us over and he wasn't really replaced. Hohaia is not a half back either, neither of them lead us around the park and don't have the confidence to do so.