: Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:22 pm  

or to put it another way, out of the 4 losses to leeds last year were all unnaceptable losses?

to my mind the first certainly was but the other 3 we put up a decent performance and got closer to a win each time, only running out of steam in last 20mins or so. As there was a steady improvement I personally wasnt as upset by those 3 losses.

: Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:57 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

the away thrashing by Saints referred to, when we were down to 3 fit men and were against a penalty count of 275 in a row, was in fact a very encouraging and creditable performance in very many ways, to me.

Well I agree there and I agree that there will always be inacceptable losses but my point was that last season there were too many against weaker opposition like Wakey and Quins and Hudds. If we had won these games we could well have finished 3rd and the sack Mac gang would have less ammunition. Hopefully we will egde out more of these games this season.

: Fri Jan 16, 2009 12:23 pm  

Ancient Provocateur wrote:

Well I agree there and I agree that there will always be inacceptable losses but my point was that last season there were too many against weaker opposition like Wakey and Quins and Hudds. If we had won these games we could well have finished 3rd and the sack Mac gang would have less ammunition. Hopefully we will egde out more of these games this season.

But we don't have a god-given right to always win against say Wakefield and it would be arrogant bullcrap to say EVERY defeat against Wakey is "unacceptable" just "because it is Wakey". If we lose to them to me it is only the manner of the defeat which may or may not be unacceptable. Same for any other team.

The days of any team being able to guarantee a win against (for example) Wakey are long gone.

: Sat Jan 17, 2009 2:07 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

You make the mistake of thinking the world, or at least the board, revolves around you, and are paranoid that every comment is aimed at you. It doesn't, and they're not.

No I don't, but if you are trying to say that I was not one of the names you had in mind with your "humble pie" quote, then I do not believe you

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

We don't have to see "how it pans out first" at all.

Yes we do. After all, if the coach's tactics are wrong, the players will make little difference.

: Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:25 am  

mystic eddie wrote:

No I don't, but if you are trying to say that I was not one of the names you had in mind with your "humble pie" quote, then I do not believe you

Well, that's up to you, but as you had already posted about it, the comment patently did not apply to you.

mystic eddie wrote:

Yes we do. After all, if the coach's tactics are wrong, the players will make little difference.

The coach's 2009 tactics are as yet zero to do with it, as even you must concede, given that the season has yet to begin. You must be worried though how many decent players apparently do not share your views of the coach's ability

: Sun Jan 18, 2009 8:28 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

The coach's 2009 tactics are as yet zero to do with it, as even you must concede, given that the season has yet to begin. You must be worried though how many decent players apparently do not share your views of the coach's ability

Yes, because Bird and Menzies have travelled across the globe in order to play for the legendary coaching skills of the internationally revered tactical genius that is Steve McNamara?


Whilst I admit the signing is a good one, the problem of the coach remains as far as I am concerned. The signing of Bird still does not change the fact that McNamara is all too often seeming to be lacking in the abilities required to successfully coach a top RL side.

After all, it hardly takes a rugby league genius to be able to identify that Bird can play a bit, a point proven by the likes of yourself, Beechwood Bull and 6 Iestyn 6 "bigging him up"

: Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:38 am  

mystic eddie wrote:

...Yes, because Bird and Menzies have travelled across the globe in order to play for ... that is Steve McNamara?

Well, you made the statement, in your usual OTT way, laden with heavy sarcasm intending it to be rhetorical, with the answer "NO" in your view being soooo obvious, nobody would need to read it. And, you think it's hilarious, which speaks volumes.

Al I can say is that the answer is, of course "Yes". Either that, or we have been wrongly deluded into thinking that the players who have signed / re-signed have done so despite believing the coach is an utter dud, thus condemning themselves to mediocrity or worse.

mystic eddie wrote:

...the legendary coaching skills of the internationally revered tactical genius...

.. Eddie, tip: you're sounding like a real bitter schmuck. Nobody has even remotely set up that ludicrously overblown claim for you to 'shoot down' except obviously somewhere in your own head. All these top players one by one agreeing to play for McNamara despite your doom-laden valedictions must be galling, but fourth-form hyperbole won't make your case look better.

mystic eddie wrote:

...Whilst I admit the signing is a good one,

That's an indication of your problem. We make a great signing, but you give away your irrational prejudice by needing to "admit" it is a good signing.

mystic eddie wrote:

... the problem of the coach remains as far as I am concerned.

Well, there you go. I bet he won't sleep. But hang on . .. .

In the other thread just now, two-faced eddie wrote:

I dunno why but I just have a sneaky feeling we will finish 2nd this season.

As no team could finish second with anything short of an excellent coach, I call upon you to explain your duplicity. Or are you hedging your bets so whatever happens, if you backed every horse, you can claim to have backed the winner?

mystic eddie wrote:

...The signing of Bird still does not change the fact that McNamara is all too often seeming TO ME to be lacking in the abilities required to successfully coach a top RL side. I AM OCD-style OBSESSED WITH REPEATING THIS MANTRA

Edited for accuracy.

mystic eddie wrote:

...After all, it hardly takes a rugby league genius to be able to identify that Bird can play a bit,

Don't know what the point is of that comment. Unless it is your muddled belief that McNamara or the Bulls have claimed to have "discovered" Bird, in an "unearthed talent" sort of way? The point, as to which you are in denial, is that Bird - like the others - made the choice to play for McNamara.

And I prefer his assessment of McNamara to yours. Before you ask, the assessment which is evident from voting with his feet, and his biro. Same as I did with Burgess, Menzies, Scruton, mini-Burgesses, international juniors, et al.

PS What "bigging up" exactly have I done; and what "bigging up" does a current origin half back need?

: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:09 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Al I can say is that the answer is, of course "Yes". Either that, or we have been wrongly deluded into thinking that the players who have signed / re-signed have done so despite believing the coach is an utter dud, thus condemning themselves to mediocrity or worse.

In the case of Scruton, Menzies and Bird, ££££££££££££££'s. Worrincy and Sheriffe just could not believe their luck.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

As no team could finish second with anything short of an excellent coach, I call upon you to explain your duplicity. Or are you hedging your bets so whatever happens, if you backed every horse, you can claim to have backed the winner?

As I said on the other thread, I reckon we can finish second because the standard of the other sides around us seems to have dropped somewhat. We may well finish second, but, for fear of hedging my bets, we could also finish about sixth. The fact is, I believe we have the PLAYERS at the club that are capable of finishing in the top two. However, I still remain unconvinced that we have the COACH in order to do so.



As for finishing second requiring an excellent coach to be in charge? I bet Chelsea fans hold Avram Grant in high regard!

: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:20 pm  

mystic eddie wrote:

The fact is, I believe we have the PLAYERS at the club that are capable of finishing in the top two. However, I still remain unconvinced that we have the COACH in order to do so.

I thought you rated a lot of McNamara's signings as poor?

: Sun Jan 18, 2009 3:22 pm  

Bully_Boxer wrote:

I thought you rated a lot of McNamara's signings as poor?

Up till now, Platt, Nero, Sykes, Godwin and Jeffries have not done enough and they need to push on.

Lynch, Newton, Burgess, Deacon, Langley, Cook have nothing to do with his signing policy.

Tadulala has gone well, Morrison was a good signing (but a tad injury prone) and Bird and Menzies look shrewd.

Solomona has generally failed to deliver the "X Factor" that McNamara signed him for, Finnigan was average at best, Feather was a dud and Tupou has been worse than Feather was.

However......

The top five players I mentioned must do better this season, and alongside the one or two quality players we now have, we could do a lot better, especially, as I mentioned earlier that I believe that our rivals are weaker this year than last.

Obviously the jury will also be out on Worrincy and Sheriffe.

But yeah, generally his signings HAVE been poor for us, but if he and they can rectify this then we MAY finish in the top 2.