Re: westerman : Wed Oct 14, 2015 2:53 pm  

ccs wrote: McDermott wasn't the most popular guy at Harlequins, it seems, ring any bells? http://retro.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=428784 Only four pages?! Poor effort. We can (and have) done lots better!

ccs wrote: McDermott wasn't the most popular guy at Harlequins, it seems, ring any bells? http://retro.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=428784 Only four pages?! Poor effort. We can (and have) done lots better!

Re: westerman : Wed Oct 14, 2015 2:55 pm  

Doc Brown wrote:

Only four pages?! Poor effort. We can (and have) done lots better!

Try the Leeds forum... there's plenty more on there.

Re: westerman : Wed Oct 14, 2015 2:57 pm  

weaver93 wrote:

When Tony Smith took over at Huddersfield, he gelled them into a cohesive team, so he is proven as a Head Coach.-IMO

He must have been good, for Leeds to entice him away under contract,and move Powell 'upstairs'.

I think what Sheldon's saying is that McDermott served as assistant under an uproven head coach at Huddersfield ie John Sharpe, not Tony Smith, then went onto London as an unproven head coach.

Re: westerman : Wed Oct 14, 2015 3:05 pm  

ccs wrote: McDermott wasn't the most popular guy at Harlequins, it seems, ring any bells? http://retro.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=428784 Reading through that is frightening as there's so many similarities there between Harlequins and what we appear to be going through. Some on there were talking about lack of ideas, poor tackling, failing to support etc and a need for an attacking coach. And it sounds like BM was as puzzled as Radders is now as to why it happens and what can be done to fix it.

ccs wrote: McDermott wasn't the most popular guy at Harlequins, it seems, ring any bells? http://retro.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=428784 Reading through that is frightening as there's so many similarities there between Harlequins and what we appear to be going through. Some on there were talking about lack of ideas, poor tackling, failing to support etc and a need for an attacking coach. And it sounds like BM was as puzzled as Radders is now as to why it happens and what can be done to fix it.

Re: westerman : Wed Oct 14, 2015 3:15 pm  

Armavinit wrote: I think what Sheldon's saying is that McDermott served as assistant under an uproven head coach at Huddersfield ie John Sharpe, not Tony Smith, then went onto London as an unproven head coach. Ah right...... McDermott worked 4 years under Tony Smith in total. (1 year at Hudds.3 year at Leeds) http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/f ... nald-mcrae

Armavinit wrote: I think what Sheldon's saying is that McDermott served as assistant under an uproven head coach at Huddersfield ie John Sharpe, not Tony Smith, then went onto London as an unproven head coach. Ah right...... McDermott worked 4 years under Tony Smith in total. (1 year at Hudds.3 year at Leeds) http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/f ... nald-mcrae

Re: westerman : Wed Oct 14, 2015 3:27 pm  

weaver93 wrote:

When Tony Smith took over at Huddersfield, he gelled them into a cohesive team, so he is proven as a Head Coach.-IMO

He must have been good, for Leeds to entice him away under contract,and move Powell 'upstairs'.

He got them relegated and lost a record 13 in a row.

I'd say gentle got us gelled into a cohesive side.

What about Maguire? When Wigan appointed him he wasn't qualified. In fact he'd never been a first team coach before. Therefore how did Wane get qualified?

Re: westerman : Wed Oct 14, 2015 3:35 pm  

I don't think anyone would argue that Radford was appointed as a head coach way too soon in his career, and not one Hull fan would say they were happy with what we've done under his tenure these past two seasons.

That said, there are facets of our game that are good, such as our meter making, field position & defence, but other (probably more important) elements of our game that are substandard. Radford IMO isn't a bad coach, but he hasn't yet proven he's a good one either, and needs help, whether that me more experience on the coaching staff or an attacking expert.

Re: westerman : Wed Oct 14, 2015 3:40 pm  

weaver93 wrote: Ah right...... McDermott worked 4 years under Tony Smith in total. (1 year at Hudds.3 year at Leeds) http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/f ... nald-mcrae You were the one who said he spent 2 years under a head coach, wiki was a bit mis leading as well. Either or, Smith wasn't proven to start with.

weaver93 wrote: Ah right...... McDermott worked 4 years under Tony Smith in total. (1 year at Hudds.3 year at Leeds) http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2013/f ... nald-mcrae You were the one who said he spent 2 years under a head coach, wiki was a bit mis leading as well. Either or, Smith wasn't proven to start with.

Re: westerman : Wed Oct 14, 2015 3:43 pm  

Sheldon wrote:

He got them relegated and lost a record 13 in a row.

I'd say gentle got us gelled into a cohesive side.

What about Maguire? When Wigan appointed him he wasn't qualified. In fact he'd never been a first team coach before. Therefore how did Wane get qualified?

Maguire worked 6 years under Bellyache.

Wigan wanted Bellyache, but he said "Madge is ready"

They took a chance on his recommendation....

According to 'Bellyache' in his opinion, as assistant coach needs at least 4 years to serve under a Head Coach, to progress to the next level.

Re: westerman : Wed Oct 14, 2015 3:58 pm  

weaver93 wrote:

Maguire worked 6 years under Bellyache.

Wigan wanted Bellyache, but he said "Madge is ready"

They took a chance on his recommendation....

According to 'Bellyache' in his opinion, as assistant coach needs at least 4 years to serve under a Head Coach, to progress to the next level.

So it's 4 years now.

Did anyone tell Saints? Cunningham only had 2 years as assistant.

Nathan Brown didn't get 4. Nor Wayne Bennett. But Gentle did wtf?!?

There's no set formula, if you think someone's your best candidate you appoint them.