: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:45 pm  

af wrote:

Hello darkness my old friend...

: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:46 pm  

af wrote:

Hello darkness my old friend...

: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:47 pm  

redeverready wrote:

IMO that's what every one is hoping and the main grumble about the Huddersfield game as their wasn't any improvement from the Hull KR game.

Fair point, I was grumbling as much as anybody on the way out, talking about "dumb" rugby with a lack of creativity.

But it is early in the season, we have not had any consistancy even this early, both in our scheduling and in the injuries we've picked up and we could still have had results against two decent teams on form even with us playing that badly. So I stand by my notion that its not as desperate yet as some people think IMHO (other people obviously differ in expectation I guess)

I just think we need to stick to saving severe critisim for after a decent run of games and then see where we are, after say, I dunno, 10 games??? sure I heard that somewhere

: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:58 pm  

Duckman wrote:

Could the "club, Hood et al" rather than just the coach not be the driving force to reinvent itself? Such that if we replace the head coach for whatever reason with a suitably qualifed and respected replacement (insert name here) that the new regime can continue any good work whilst attempting to rectify any percieved failings on the pitch. So the kids and stars like Burgess stay and the community programs and Cumbria scouting continue, irrespective of the head coach as the "Bradford Club" has good long term plans not just the coach.

I'd hate to think our entire long term future if dependant upon McNamara alone, if he ends up being very successful (stay with me ME and others ) then he could up sticks and take a better club opportunity, what then for the long term planning?

"Hood et al" doesn't add up to much - Hood says he never wanted the job on a permanent basis and our board of directors is pretty sparsely populated. That's not to decry the job they've been doing - people like to take the p.ss out of Odsal pipedreams but regardless of whether this comes off or not the club seem to have worked their ar5e off to make it a possibility by building a grand coalition of partners. But I think it's a lot to expect that they be intimately involved with the playing side of things.

When it comes to onfield matters, things have been largely left to SM AFAIK. I think the strategy is a good one that has worked in other sports - Wenger, Moyes, Ferguson, O Neill all seem to be in charge of all aspects football-related. Now you're right to raise the question as to what happens if he clears off. For many of the young players he has brought through, the club's unique selling point - Steve McNamara - would have gone and so they would be open to offers from elsewhere. However, better to have one inpermanent USP than none at all.

If SM leaves or gets hit by a bus then the club will have to cope as best they can. But let's hope that he isn't, and let's not shove him off the pavement ourselves, metaphorically or physically.

: Tue Mar 03, 2009 6:46 am  

af wrote:

Hello darkness my old friend...

Oh dear, I may as well indulge you.

Why does every argument you have, have to be a case of "who/what is better than what we have"?

Wigan have made a couple of GF eliminators, Hull KR are showing improvement as are Catalans, Huddersfield, Wakefield (under Kear) and to a lesser extent, Castleford. Hull FC and Wire have disappointed obviously.

The fact remains though that clubs like KR, Wakey, Cas and the Cats are at least showing signs of improvement and a genuine hope. (In fact, it may have escaped your notice but the Catalans lost their manager to a superior side, hence was his achievements at the club.)

We are showing no improvement, a fact that you clearly refuse to accept despite plenty of opinion (evidence?) to the contrary?

However, as you wish to dwell on your on points, hows' about you answer the points I put to you about McNamara's signings?

: Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:29 am  

mystic eddie wrote:

Why does every argument you have, have to be a case of "who/what is better than what we have"?

Did you just ask why every argument has to follow a standard script?

: Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:43 am  

vbfg wrote:

Did you just ask why every argument has to follow a standard script?

I am asking why it is that af needs a solution to every problem before people are allowed to debate said problem.

: Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:47 am  

Right. My mistake.

: Tue Mar 03, 2009 8:50 am  

af wrote:

"Hood et al" doesn't add up to much ...

...For many of the young players he has brought through, the club's unique selling point - Steve McNamara - would have gone and so they would be open to offers from elsewhere. However, better to have one inpermanent USP than none at all.

If SM leaves or gets hit by a bus then the club will have to cope as best they can. But let's hope that he isn't, and let's not shove him off the pavement ourselves, metaphorically or physically.

So like I said, the club has bigger, more fundamental problems than Steve McNamara not consistantly delivering trophies.

And if its true that the club has started laying people off, why do people assume we can afford to pay up McNamaras contract (and some other coaching staff with him presumeably) and pay a new team of coaches possibly at a higher rate, as well during the same period, up to the end of this season when McNamaras contract expires anyway. On that note I am assuming the coaching staff budget is not within the salary cap budget??

And before anyone says we have the money as we were going to buy Bird, yes, obviously we could find the money from the playing staff if we needed it, point is, signing Bird would improve the playing squad and so is money well spent, paying for two coaches at once which only might bring an improvement and might as easily cause more disruption and a worsening of the situation is not in my opionion money well spent at this time....but my view on that is open to change as the season progresses.

: Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:50 am  

redeverready wrote:

So the Burgesses more importantly Sam wouldn't have signed with out McNamara yeah right.

Who knows, but your sneer is a blank fired, since they said that Mac was a highly persuasive factor, and the proof of the pudding is the signatures on the contracts.

redeverready wrote:

If we hadn't let Hull KR come 60 meters from the scrum they wouldn't have got close enough.

And if the game hadn't ever kicked off, Hull KR wouldn't ever have had the ball to come 60 metres with. Your point?

redeverready with the predictable excuses wrote:

A Saints side missing one of their most influential players and containing 4 teenagers with 1 making his debut and the other 3 having made 7 appearances between them.

Ah, yes, the real Saints would've whupped 'em, to borrow a phrase: yeah right . ..

redeverready wrote:

I take it you mean Menzies and how much did that crystal ball cost you.

From the stand it looked more Tadulala's ball that was spilled rather than Menzies spilling it but whatever, you understand the point.

Or if I need to spell it out, if we manage to successfully ground the ball then to me that makes us favourites to go on and win, and the score getting chalked off had the opposite effect of firing up Hudds, who will all have thought we had scored, and will have been enthused greatly by getting away with that one.

But as for crystal balls - why be such an ignorant ass? Unless when you read my post, your brain really does think I claim to KNOW for a FACT what WOULD have happened? Didn't you, like a normal person, work out that this is in MY OPINION? Didn't the phrase "almost certainly" indicate to you that this was not a crystal ball scenario?? Do I really have to preface every remark with "IMHO" just for your dozy benefit??? No? Well why make the dumb comment re crystal balls, then?

Tell you what, I'll stop predecting what might have happened within the next 5 minutes, if you stop predicting what would happen if the club sacked McNamara, OK Mr. Petulengro?