About the players or the point generally?

The players.

Then I was using that to back up my point. Had Tony Smith gone in with the players Cullen and Lowes had only, and done what he has, then I would hold my hands up. But he hasn't, you see because even he isn't that good.

I see. You're right about the players but not the point.

Myler has been peripheral, Monaghan wasn't there last year and Atkins has been injured much of this year. How many of those players you mentioned played a part in the 2009 final win?

Teams always turn over players. Cullen and lowes were given Moran's chequebook. Smith turned them around they way he did with us. The evidence is there.

Since 2004 Smith has coached in 6 SL seasons excluding this one. There have been 12 major finals played and he has guided his teams to 6 of them.

You are missing the point Gareth. What they brought to the team is what has improved Warrington immensely. Had they not been brought in they wouldn't have improved by such degree. You can't put everything on Smith. Just like the player changes, he's played a big part, but a part is what it is.

How was Myler peripheral? Until he got injured last year he was one of the leading players in Super League. He got injured, was out of the picture. A new season starts and he is once again turning into a leading light. Certainly led our halfbacks a merry dance last week.

How is Atkins injured not backing up my point? The fact is that Warrington started improving last season, then have gone on another notch this year. Atkins and Myler along with promoting home grown talent started the improvment, and adding quality like Monaghan and Hodgson this year has seen them go on another gear.

The Cullen and Lowes squad would have been a mid end play off side without the change in playing personell. A Bit like Leeds now.

Yes there's been some turnover in players, but that also includes Wire losing some decent players (J.Monaghan and Atkins for Hicks and Gleeson isn't *that* much of an improvement on the field, for example). Fair enough, Smith identified Gleeson as trouble to the squad and quickly shipped him out. That's part of a coach's responsibility.

Most of the players were there under Lowes, but did he get anything out of Briers or Bridge? Have Carvell and Wood and Westwood immproved out of sight since he left? Michael Monaghan at scrumhalf was shaping up to be one of the worst SL imports ever. Matt King was shaping up to be hands-down the worst.

There is no evidence that having a couple more good players available would make the slightest difference to a team coached by Jimmy Lowes, because the many good players he actually had didn't look so good while he was there.

I'm not a blinkered Tony Smith fanboy, but anyone can see how superior he is to Lowes and Cullen, even if that's only because the latter two are so very, very poor.

I don't think anyone is arguing over who is better in Smith or Lowes and Cullen.

I think that's a pretty obvious result.

I think you answer your own contradiction in your first paragraph. Comparing Monaghan and Atkins to Gleeson and Hicks is just scraping the barrell.

Briers has always been the same player, regardless of who is the coach. Always been number one in that squad. It's how the players around him play that changes the results.

I'm going to give you the King and to an extent the Bridge position. King is definately a different player under Smith, but then again let's be realistic why should anything else have been expected. The guy was world class before going to Wire, so why shouldn't he have continued. Perhaps though, the well known "Settling in period" could also have had an effect here?

I said an extent to Bridge, because in the most part before Smith there he was injured, and it was actually Lowes that saw and suggested Bridge as a centre rather than a stand off. Smith put when fit Bridge into centre and got a much better player for it.

You're missing the point. They weren't tjhere in 2009 when they won the CC Final.

Erm, no. J Monaghan played no part in either the 2009 or 2010 finals. Neither did Myler. Atkins played in one of them.

He wasn't even selected for the 2010 final. He went from England's scrum half to a player who was striuggling to get in Warrington's 17.

What about the 2009 squad, inhereted by lowes, from Cullen and inhereted by Smith from Lowes? What about the 2010 squad?

Smith has turned around Warrington. Of course those palyers are playing a part but who is coaching them to levels they haven't acheived before?

We are at complete cross purposes here. Although I am guessing it is done on purpose on your part to use in your argument.



The Challenge cup means absolute diddly squat to me. I would base no reference on the quality of a coach or a team on winning that competition. Even John Kear has won 2 challenge cups

.

What you need to look at is the league. 2009 was a non entitiy for Warrington, they finished 10th and oustide the play offs. But for lucky draws in the challenge cup that season would have been long wiped from their memories.

Just to clarify they actually went backwards in 2009 from a respectable 6th position in 2008.

Then the player changes started to happen (along with Smith's input) and they became a force in 2010, and with more changes have gone up a massive gear in 2011.

Your final sentence doesn't make sense. The players are been coached to levels they have been before, that's the point, they went out and signed class players.

I see. It means an awful lot to me. It meant an awful lot to most of our fans judging by reactions to the 2010 defeat. How did you react to it? What will your posts from the aftermath show about how little it meant?

Belittle it all you want but Kear's achievements are fantastic and, in particular the 1998 victory remains of of all sports greatest achievements, let alone rugby league.

Actually, you don't look at the league. You look at the playoffs and the Grand Final. League table positions are far less important than Challenge Cup wins.

What were their results like pre and post TS in 2009. Do you think Smith realised the league was shot for them and went after the only other major trophy available, successfully?

Indeed. With who at the helm? Do you really think Cullen and or Lowes would have them where they are and have been, even with the same players?

Yes, Myler and Atkins' pre Wire days were littered with major finals and trophies.

darren, only you can't see a top coach would make a big difference. we would be a different side with burgess and clarkson in for a start. cross should get a run too

Not for me you don't, and I''ve been consistent on that. If that really is what matters to you, then what are you moaning about this season for? We are not out of the cup, and we are currently in the play off positions without them starting until September.

For me it's about consistency and level of performance. That is something only the league shows a reflection of. Your 4 rounds before playing a challenge cup final don't give you that. With Warrington's record you don't even play super league sides for 2 of the rounds. The League is the only reflection on a team.



It doesn't really matter does it. They still went out and made player personell changes.



No, I don't, but then again that is still an irrelevant point. It still needed the playing personell changes to get them where they are.

Let's put it in another way. You seriously believe that the squad of players when Smith arrived, would be top of the league now without any player changes?






It really isn't surprising you picking out just the two.

I think you meant can't there Tad, but you are wrong there. I fully accept a top coach would make a difference. I just don't accept that any coach with this sqaud of players would have us challenging for the Legue title. And if you are not challenging then what is the point?

I fully accept with you on the Burgess, Clarkson and Cross front. Absolutely agree, they would make a big difference, when comparing with 5h1te like Hauraki. But again I reapeat, as far as beating Warrington last week, they would not have changed that.

Where have I moaned?

It used to do before 1998 when the top spot was the goal. Now it's a qualifying comp, no more no less and every team knows that before a ball is kicked.


Erm, not since 1998.

Yes, it probably would be.

It's still the best indicator of how well a team has performed over the course of the season, irrespective of whether it goes on to win the Grand Final or not.

If you're measuring improvement from one season to the next relative to the rest of the competition, it remains the best way of doing it IMO.

A couple of pages back.



Again we are at cross purposes.

The league gives a reflection of the consistency and quality of a team. Winning the GF makes you champions. I am in agreement with the GF concept, let's clear that up, but consistency of performance throughout the season does not mean you can't have both.





. I have more respect for you than that. You don't believe that at all, so I'll ignore it for future.

TS's first game in charge of Warrington in 2009 was in Round 4 against Leeds at Headingley.

So he had 24 SL games to turn it around there.

Warrington finished 10th.

HTH

I don't think anyone is arguing with this team and a better coach we would be winning the title, but that we would be closer to challenging and would be more competitive in these games

I don't think TS would make a difference at Leeds right now. I doubt he'd even be welcomed back by the senior players at Leeds anyhow.

TS is very much like his elder brother. They are like a breath of fresh air when they join a club and they invariably turn things around fairly sharpish with improvements in enthusiasm, performances, tactics and results.

However, both possess limited shelf lives at any one club due in the main to their peremptory personalities, which, once the initial freshness and general bonhomie has worn off, enthusiasm, results and performances by the team tail off and the coach moves on to another coaching gig elsewhere.

TS's departure from Leeds in 2007 was entirely appropriate.

IMO it doesn't.

Is the end goal of every team to be the most consistent or the champions?

Every team has known, since 1998, the route to being champions, is through the playoffs. They aim to qualify as high as they can in the league but, more importantly, as has been shown many times, they aim to finish wit ha wet sail going into the playoffs.

TS won league titles in 2004 and 2007 at Leeds so your theory of a limited shelf life and a tail off is not suipported by facts.

The 2007 season was heading in the same direction as the disastrous 2006 season until TS announced he was leaving. That kick-started the season into gear. The title win that year was the enthusiastic team response to the announced departure and due in the main to a freshened-up anticipation and relief at the news of the arrival of a new coaching regime, along with a desire to impress the new boss before he arrives.

Goal post shift duly noted.

I still don't see how winning a title "due to his leaving" is consistent with "performances by the team tail off and the coach moves on to another coaching gig elsewhere". IIRC before TS moved on to another gig he them won a GF in fairly convincing style.

The GF was won in convincing style, though even the most ardent believists would have been shocked and surprised at that result. It certainly didn't mirror any Leeds performance in 2007 prior to that GF. Doesn't alter the fact that Leeds in 2007 were pretty ordinary for the most part... as ordinary as they were throughout 2006. I don't recall too many complaints or campaigns of "Smith Must Stay!" when his departure was announced either. His time was already up no matter what transpired later on. Given the platform set in 2004 and the squad at his disposal, Tony Smith underachieved between 2005 and 2007.

You need to stop living in the past and let him go. He's not the answer to Leeds current predicament.

All of the above is duly noted as fog knitting of Gotcha proportions that doesn't hide the fact that the end of Smith's career at leeds was far from a "tail off".

Guffaw.

You bring me into your arguments?

This from someone who says coach A would have been top of the league now, with the same set of players whom he finished 10th with in 2009, despite the same players finishing 6th the season before.

Yes, Guffaw would be the correct word in this case.

And I'm writing it like that because I'm offended so there.