Those came about after the 3rd year when it went sour i guess both sides could do with a change then plus there was nothing but praise when we were winning back to back titles and the WCC.

The same key players in the squad were 4 years older for Big Mac than Bluey.

The "awful, unstructered and ill disciplined RL" was inherited from the stuff we played in 2010 under Bluey.

Big Mac had to play the first half of the season without 2 of his key players and it took quite some time for them to get anything like there form back when they did return. The further injuries in the early part of 2011 were so bad that for one match we didn't have a recognised prop or perhaps one out of form one.

I am not "too easy in my support for Brian Mac" I think what he achieved under the circumstances speaks for itself. I also have acknowledged that Bluey deserves credit for his GF wins in taking over the top team in SL at the time but IMO this should not gloss over what was a decline in playing standards and discipline on his watch. I have no axe to grind as I thought Bluey always came over as a decent bloke.

I agree with this statement, but it needs to be qualified and put into perspective. Some may refer to this as [i"looking at the bigger picture"[/i rather than entering into a [i"Tony Smith is better than Bluey or vice versa"[/i p[ii[/issing contest.

Bluey did preside over a decline in general playing standards whilst at Leeds, however this decline has been mirrored by a general decline in playing standards in Super League and across all SL clubs as a whole and this is still an ongoing trend. On the issue of indiscipline as measured by the concession of penalties, Bluey's last two seasons witnessed a bucking the overall Super League trend in terms of percentage increase or decrease in penalties conceded.

=#FF0000In 2007, Smith presided over a 22.2% increase, Super League overall a 5.3% increase.
=#0040FFIn 2008, Bluey presided over an 8.6% increase, Super League overall a 2.8% increase.
In 2009, Bluey presided over a 2.8% DECREASE, Super League overall a 2.0% increase.
In 2010, Bluey presided over a 3.8% increase, Super League overall an 11.7% increase.
=#00BF00In 2011, BMc presided over a 5.5% increase, Super League overall a 2.9% DECREASE.


During the period in which Tony Smith was in charge of Leeds, Super League averaged 2173.25 penalties per season (2004/5/6/7). During the period in which Brian McClennan was in charge of Leeds, Super League averaged 2749.00 penalties per season (2008/9/10). That's called looking at the bigger picture.


You may well arrive at that preset conclusion if your agenda discounts that in Super League overall, the number of penalties conceded in total also increased by a sizeable percentage over the same period.

Statistics may be moulded, shaped or just plainly ignored in an attempt to prove almost any assertion. For instance, someone with a Pro-Bluey agenda could claim that the trend of indiscipline at the club set in whilst Tony Smith was coach, as noted by the most dramatic percentage increases in penalties given away during his final two seasons (2006 and 2007) at the club.

=#FF00002006 saw a 29.6% increase in the number of penalties given away by Leeds under Smith.
2007 saw a 22.2% increase in the number of penalties given away by Leeds under Smith.
=#0040FF2008 saw an 8.6% increase in the number of penalties given away by Leeds under Bluey.
2009 saw a 2.8% DECREASE in the number of penalties given away by Leeds under Bluey.
2010 saw a 3.8% increase in the number of penalties given away by Leeds under Bluey.
=#00BF002011 saw a 5.5% increase in the number of penalties given away by Leeds under BMc.

The decline in playing standards at the club has been ongoing since 2004/05 and no amount of SL titles will cover up that decline. It mirrors the decline in playing standards in Super League overall year on year since then, across all SL clubs.

I fully expect SL in 2012 to witness a further decline in playing standards both at Leeds and overall throughout the competition.

Perhaps but it's also factually accurate.




I'm intrigued as to where this information can be found outside of the number crunchers at Opta. If you had them I'd expect you'd include them but you haven't.



Yes penalties can and often do lead to points, there is no disputing that but why would conceding a further ten metres for dissent be a critical addition to the problem? The original penalty was the issue, the dissent could have slowed the game allowing a vulnerable defence to organize. When Sinfield walks up to the referee to ask for clarification on an infringement it's as often as not a tactic to buy time for his side.

So you're saying penalties specifically for dissent increased under coach McClennan and decreased under coach McDermott?

Those will be interesting stats to see. Your perception (?) may be right but without the counts it's difficult to judge.



The stats will prove this point one way or the other. Do you know a website you can copy and paste them from?



The facts speak for themselves.

__________



Smith's last season in charge was 2007, Leeds finished the regular rounds in 2nd behind St Helens with a playing record of:

Played 27, Won 18, Drew 1, Lost 8, Pts For 747, Pts Against 487, Pts Diff 260, Comp Pts 37

They had no WCC game to interfere with early season, went out of the Challenge Cup at home to Wigan in round 5 and beat St Helens in the Grand Final.

That was the Smith legacy McClennan took over. Leeds finished the regular rounds in 2nd behind St Helens with a playing record of:

Played 27, Won 21, Drew 0, Lost 6, Pts For 863, Pts Against 413, Pts Diff 450, Comp Pts 42

That shows McClennan's Leeds winning more matches, scoring more points and conceded fewer, the seemingly obvious critique to make would be a side more entertaining to watch ball in hand and meaner in defence than the one McClennan had inherited.

They defeated Melbourne to win the WCC, went out of the Challenge Cup at the semi-final stage V St Helens and beat St Helens in the Grand Final becoming the first club in SL history to do the WCC/Champion double in the same season.

My posts simply stated that IMO standards declined under McClennan and our poor discipline was not improved. I had no agenda re one coach over the another. But in order to argue my point (which is only my opinion anyway), when challanged by tvoc and his rather odd way of contesting my point, I had to show that actual penalties awarded against Leeds increased under McClennan when compared with the tenure of Smith.

Yes indeed your stats prove that penalties overall in SL were on the increase, however this fact in no way alters or invalidates my point. Despite this increase in overall penalties what is clear is that when compared to the Smith era not only did we give away more penalties under Bluey but we rose up the penalty conceded charts when compared to the other teams. ie: Under Smith we gave away the least number of penalties of any SL team in 3 seasons on the trot and the other time (2007) there were only 3 teams that gave away fewer penalties. Whereas under McClennan we moved up the penalty conceded charts achieving 9th, 4th, and 6th place.

Thats called returning to the specific point and backing it up with facts that are relevant to the issue.



I tend to agree with you regarding the overall playing standards. However there are exceptions. Warrington played some consistently entertaining and outstanding rugby in 2011 under coach Smith. IMO allowing too much messing around at the ruck area has added to the decline in entertainment value together with some poor standards from the officials.

Really? In the 3 trophyless years prior to the 2003 season we finished at least 12 points off top spot. In 2003 Daryl Powell had assembled a young talented squad that was able to compete for trophies. In the 3 previous seasons I always classed us as the 4th best team behind Wigan, Saints and Bradford.

I fully believe that Powell would have won a GF in the following 3 seasons just like Smith did but we will never know. We may not have had the future period of success that we have enjoyed but we would have won GFs. In no way am I saying Powell is a good a coach as Smith but it is easy to look good when you have the best squad in the League like we did in 04 and 05.

and I full believe we wouldn't.

Like you say, it's pure conjecture but I think Powell was a good young coach but unable to get his players to take things to the next level, like Smith did.

Smith improved teh individual abilities of his players.

The net sum of penalties recieved - penalties conceded may well be accurate but it quite irrelevant to the issue which to remind was as I stated, that Bluey "inherited a champion quality side yet, IMO, presided over a decline in general playing standards with no improvement in our poor discipline"

So your argumentative point in no way changed the facts that are:
In season 2004 under Smith we had 142 penalties awarded against us (Best out of 12 in SL)
In season 2005 under Smith we had 125 penalties awarded against us (Best out of 12 in SL)
In season 2006 under Smith we had 162 penalties awarded against us (Best out of 12 in SL)
In season 2007 under Smith we had 198 penalties awarded against us (9th worst out of 12 in SL)
In season 2008 under Bluey we had 215 penalties awarded against us ( (9th worst out of 12 in SL)
In season 2009 under Bluey we had 209 penalties awarded against us (4th worst out of 14 in SL)
In season 2010 under Bluey we had 217 penalties awarded against us (6th worst out o 14 in SL)

So Smith averaged 157 penalties per season over 4 years with a comparative position of best against the other SL clubs
& Bluey averaged 214 penalties per season over 3 years with a comparative position of 6 worst out of 14 other SL clubs


As you said "The facts speak for themselves."





You missed the very important fact the Leeds were Champions in 2007 which was the real Smith legacy McLennan took over -

As I had stated in fact! So he inherited the top side in SL who were running hot and in good form which you could argue didn't need much coaching but from 2009 despite our GF win the decline in standards began to surface becoming most noticeable in 2010.

This thread reminds me of the line in Wayne Bennett's book about a great captain being more important than a great coach, and a great captain will make the coach look good.

But also maybe my memory is failing me but I seem to remember being a visitor to the Leeds board in 2007 and seeing that the jury was very much out on Tony Smith (prior to the GF win) and the argument of "presided over a general decline in playing standards" was being used against Smith then.

Also when Smith was appointed Warrington coach in 2009 we had a few Leeds fans on our forum warning us not to expect too much...the argument being that Smith had taken over Leeds at the right time to enjoy a season of great success, but then had unbalanced the team, left it short in the front row and seen a slip in playing standards in his last two seasons at Leeds whilst not getting on entirely with all the squad.

To test McLennan's real ability you need a counterfactual of how would he go in a different environment, like Smith and Millward have done. You could argue that Smith was only successful because he had a great squad at Leeds, but his record at Warrington disputes that. You could argue that Millward was only successful because he had a great squad at Saints, and his record at Wigan suggests there is something in that.

He has a great squad at Warrington too. Maybe a fairer test will be to see how he fares as Morley and Briers continue to age.

His record speaks for itself.

He turned Huddersfield around - although they were (finally) relegated in his first season there the progression both within that season and, overall, compared to the previous ones was clear. He then cemented their position in the top flight after getting them promoted and, arguably, laid the foundations for the club being competetive as it remains today.

His challenge at Leeds was to ditch the loser mentality. His error, such as it was, was in doing it so quickly and so emphatically that we all started expecting more, much more and, no doubt, he struggled to deliver as much as we wanted in 2005 and especially 2006. When he quit mid season in '07 general feeling here was that it was the right time but he managed to get the perfect ending - no doubting, based on the testimony of the Leeds players, the legacy of Tony Smith and the impact he had on this group of players remains fundamental to the three subsequent title victories.

At Warrington, he has had an even more dramatic turnaround compared to Leeds. Sure, he has had plenty of money backing him but much of the squad that won those two Challenge Cups were the same as the one that Cullen had taken to the bottom of the league.

His record at club level is, in my mind, pretty much impeccable.

Warrington did have a good squad who were tipped to do well,but underperformed Smith came in and made them play to their potential,he also did a good job at Huddersfield. Good coach

It does. But Smith's Warrington squad was and is a very good one. TS has improved it from where it was, no doubt, but should it fail to win a GF it won't have reached its full potential IMO.

I remember an article back in 2003 on SS.com and it went along the lines of Leeds being only 6 points from glory, indicating that an extra 3 pts in the CC final would have given us the cup, an extra point in the defeat to Bradford in Sept would have landed us the LL shield, and an extra 2 points against Wigan in the play-offs would have won us that game and got us to the GF. At the time I felt we were unlucky to come to the end of the season without some silverware, but when you couple those facts with the fact that we lost to Bulls 5 times that season, and there was fair daylight between us and the other teams, I think it highlights that we were not able to do the little extra things in the tight and big games. ONce Smith came in I think he added steel to a very talented squad, which enabled them to fulfil their potential. The Leeds team he inherited were very good, and had loads of potential, but were missing that little bit to turn them into winners.

Once Bluey came in the team already had that big game mentality and were used to winning. However, it needed to be maintained, and I think he was the right man for the job as Leeds needed someone to keep them fresh, and bring out the best in them once the finals came around. He was probably also highly responsible for the "players having a few less quid in their pockets" mentality, which was a key to their continued unprecedented sucess.

Who gave away more penalties in their tenure? I couldn't give a tuppeny

Just because you don't have the stats for penalties awarded to Leeds doesn't make my chosen formula invalid. I believe Swiftcorn has explained why using raw numbers (albeit only those accrued in regular round fixtures - rather than the full set I use which also include WCC, CC and SL P/O's) have to be set in context of the league as a whole and the direction the RFL are going, i.e. seeking to speed the game up or slow it down. Indeed for next season the RFL are trying to bring about a fall in penalties by encouraging referees to play advantage more often. Should the policy succeed in reducing raw numbers it will in part be down to the officials rather than the specific actions of the SL coaches.

That's why I chose the method I did as it compares the number of penalties awarded against the number conceded in all matches for the given season. It removes having to consider which direction the RFL are heading that season whether attempting to speed the game up or slow it down. Using the head to head rating also removes any effect of inconsistencies between referees where one may average 10 penalties a match and another may average 30 at various points in the season. If your team sees an above average of the latter and a below average of the former your numbers can be skewed because of it.

So using my relative method, if the penalty count is a 5-6 or a 15-16 it counts the same and removes the mood of the referee from the equation, something raw totals cannot do.




Not neccessarily for the reasons I gave above. Your 36% is inaccurate by the way as the per regular round game increase is even greater than that.



If you say so but positions on these tables can be pretty tight where a few extra penalties over a 27/28 regular round season could be the difference between placing bottom (top) and placing mid table. Or to put it another way seeing too much of the wrong type of official can have a disproportionate bearing on the raw data and eventual position.



So when McClennan took charge and the team conceded more penalties that was his fault rather than the previous coach but when McDermott took charge and the team conceded more penalties that was the previous coach's fault?

Just checking.

The lengths you will go to try and win a point which is irrelevant to the issue is rather sad.

The significant increase in penalties in every season Bluey was in charge compared to every season Smith was in charge (with an average penalty count per season up from 157 under Smith to 214 under Bluey) proves my point in real terms.

While our position of conceding the least penalities in SL when compared with all the other SL teams, achieved in the Smith years, was lost as Bluey precided over a decline in discipline as we moved up the the penalties conceded table to reach 4th worst out of 14 in one year. This rather proves the decline in discipline at Leeds when compared with all the other SL teams.

That you haven't the grace to acknowledge that I have proven my point is also rather sad.

And as already countered the side McClennan inherited would win a WCC, go further in the Challenge Cup, remain in 2nd on the League table with a superior winning ratio, increased points scored and reduced points conceded while retaining the SL trophy.

Therefore IMO it's perverse to view that record as a decline in general playing standards with the team he inherited from the previous coach.



These totals are incomplete as they ignore WCC, Challenge Cup and Play-Off fixtures and they take no account of the direction the RFL and it's officials were taking the sport at the time.

Does it really matter in the grand scheme that Leeds conceded more penalties if they also at the same time received more penalties?



I accept these stats show an increase in penalties conceded but without the context of also showing penalties received it's difficult to assess the relevance or to know where to apportion the blame. The RFL, the inconsistency between officials, the spoiling tactics introduced by certain southern hemisphere coaches or even the players themselves.

Did McClennan ever say he was comfortable with the amount of penalties being conceded? I seem to recall he was often perturbed at losing the counts and had meetings with officials to try to understand what they required as he wished to see an improvement.

Here's a typical extract in the YEP from 2010:

[iReferee James Child awarded Wakefield 17 penalties to Leeds’ 7 – and sin-binned visiting captain Kevin Sinfield. McClennan said: =#0000BF“It was a lot, 10 extra penalties is a potential 60 extra tackles. Our captain needs to be able to talk to the referee to get some feedback, so we can address it as a team. We were struggling to do that. He’s a young ref and he’s obviously going to mature as he has more games, but we need to be able to get more feedback from him. We’re all for the improvement of the ruck area and we want to contribute to that, so no problems there, but we need our captain to at least be able to talk to the referee and get some feedback.” [/i



Since when has a side not needed much coaching in the salary capped era of SL?

McClennan's Leeds improved while maintaining the Championship in year one of his stewardship before achieving the still to be emulated retaining of the trophy by a SL coach in year two.

McClennan - the only SL coach to win a WCC and SL in the same season and the only SL coach to retain the title yet some seek to question his potential inclusion in a fan-based 'Hall Of Fame.'

Difficult to fathom the depths of some of the negative opinions expressed on here at times.

You are talking of one season. My point was the general decline in playing standards over the whole McClennan period which include entertainment style and quality of rugby and not soley results. You mention the WCC win. IMO Leeds were current Champions and running hot and would have won it with even you as coach!.......On second thoughts we couldn’t have achieved anything had you been in charge. Your negativity would have seen to that. However I very much doubt McClennan was the key to the team winning the WCC as he had not had time.



You forget that McClennan took over the top team in SL with the best record for conceding penalties. That it took a couple of years for the decline to manifest itself on the inherited winning ways says much for the talent of this outstanding group of players.

What is perverse is your continual belief that McClennan did not precide over a decline in discipline when we had a substantial increase in penalties in each of his season in both real terms and when compared with other SL teams



So produce the stats that include these few extra games before assuming they will alter the issue. The direction the game was going in is irrelevant as my figures also showed our increase in penalties when compared with all the other teams in SL



Yes it does. Quite how you believe that the penalties concede by the opposition somehow mitigates the increase in our penalties conceded and is therefore ok, I do not know.

In any case I have already proven to you that when compared with all the other teams in SL we rose up the penalty charts since Bluey took over from Smith.

Another fact which is interesting and highlights the difference between the achievements of Smith and McClennan with regard to discipline is to compare the penalties conceded in SL by Warrington and Leeds in the period that Smith was in charge at Warrington. In both seasons Warrington conceded fewer penalties and were 4th best in the penalty charts whereas Leeds were 5th worst. So Smith has a coaching style that under different teams produces very good consistent discipline. McClennan does not have this record and I seem to remember that the NZ team under him had a bad record for discipline.




What? You’ll be blaming man made global warming next as you wriggle to avoid saying you were wrong in your challenge to my point.



McClennan’s excuses are irrelevant to the issue and do not in any way alter my original point.



My point was in context to McClennan initially taking over and winning the WCC and to some extent his first Championship.



The team continued to do well playing in the Smith style and Bluey as I have stated deserves the credit for his part in this. However the evidence you have produced to say the team actually improved does not show the skills, style and entertainment value improved and could be due to the general decline in overall SL standards rather than improvement by the coach.

What is clear is that by 2010 McClennan had managed to change the successful and talented Leeds side with the attractive Smith style of playing into a team playing the McClennan negative and boring style. At the start of 2010 the team was under prepared and tactically awful in adapting to the new interpretations of the ruck area. This was clear from the WCC game onwards as other top teams adapted well with far better technical coaching evident.




I have given Bluey credit for his part in this success and have stated that if silverware is the only criteria then he should be in the H of F. However as SL is in the entertainment business IMO there should be other factors to consider in assessing his worth. So taking into consideration these other factors you can argue McClennan has not been quite the success that the silverware might suggest.

It seems that some are adamant that Smith is to be remembered only for the good things, ignoring the moments under his tenure when Leeds temporarily regained their underachievers tag, with McClennan remembered as the man who inherited and then ruined Smith's all-conquering side.

It's hardly fair to focus on 2010 for McClennan whilst completely ignoring Smith's worst season in 2006. Smith put things right in 2007, but who is to say McClennan wouldn't have won the GF had he stayed on in 2011?
If you compare the first 3 seasons for each coach, actually McClennan finishes ahead. It's a shame he didn't stay for a fourth year so that a fairer comparison could have been made



As bad as 2010 was under McClennan, Leeds still made the CC final, were the only team to beat Wigan in the play-offs, and they also managed beat all the top clubs in the regular season (= higher placing on AP/Keith Swiftcorn's non-flat track bully table). At the same time, they started the year decimated by injuries, and lost key players on the verge of the business end of the season in Peacock and McGuire. Compare to 2006, the year Peacock signed, when Leeds were unable to match Saints at all in the regular season, got knocked out of the CC by Huddersfield (before they were decent), finished 3rd in the league and got knocked out of the play-offs by 6th placed Warrington (before they were decent). I know which season I preferred.

Why is this debate still going on? If he is not to be inducted now there should at least be some kind of vote on the site.

Your point isn't proven in real terms as it takes no account of what was happening in the rest of the league at the same time.

As Swiftcorn's figures showed earlier in the thread: the biggest real term season to season increase came in 2007 under Smith with the next biggest coming in 2011 under McDermott. They also show that in two of McClennan's three season's in charge there was in actual fact a real term decrease at Leeds relative to the rest of the league.



Earlier I asked how you were defining poor discipline and you replied:

'take into account the sort of penalties given away and at what time in a game or in what field position.'

in which way does Leeds' overall position on these tables reflect your more interesting point?

You state a noted increase in the above instances (and dissent) under McClennan without offering a shread of evidence to support your specific examples of poor discipline. Perhaps you'll consider addressing this omission shortly rather than just expecting people to accept your unsubstantiated claims as fact.



The point that the number of penalties Leeds conceded (using only the SL Regular Rounds - a sample which basically excludes knock-out football) increased under McClennan (without placing that in the context of what was happening in the rest of SL) is proven but was also never in question.

My original comment was was not about who is the best coach. I said that IMO playing standards regressed under McClennan and discipline did not improve. In both cases I believe I am right. I only commented on individual seasons in response to comments from others on specific seasons.

Neither was it McClennan's trophies or any finishing position that I commented on. It was the decline in the quality of rugby that is important to me. I fully accept that the entertainment value is not important to many on this board and as I said if it is soley about silverware then McClennan should be included.

It's the silverware that will always be remembered and the playing plus coaching staff associated with that winning that gain recognition. McClennan induction it is then

You don't think Leeds needed a coach to beat a Melbourne team containing the likes of Billy Slater, Israel Falou, Cooper Cronk, Jeremy Smith, Adam Blair, Brett White, Ryan Hoffman, Dallas Johnson and Sika Manu?

The point you choose to ignore is that no coach during the SL Era before or since Brian McClennan has achieved the feat of preparing a side for a successful tilt at the WCC contest and again for a successful end of season Play-Off campaign in the same year.

Is it one season when the following year the SL title was retained, again a unique achievement during the SL Era by an individual coach. Winning a title is hard but how many people (in all sports) state that defending it is even harder? Not only did McClennan's Leeds defend their title but they also completed the unprecedented achievement (not just SL Era this time but in the sport's entire British history) of a back-to back-to back Championship success where a Play-Off system is used to determine the winners.

Perhaps, just perhaps mind, in order to achieve these unique feats of endurance it is also necessary to plan a season where there will be a lull in performance at times in order to be firing when it counts. I somehow doubt the majority of fans even care when looking back what the performances were like along the way to winning or retaining the Championship.



The increase was there for all to see but what I find perverse is an attempt to lay the blame for it at the feet of one individual when the same increase was being experienced throughout the league as a collective. Leeds were also receiving a greater number of decisions in their favour to counter-balance any negative effect but this point remains irrelevant to you as you are only prepared to accept one side of the issue.



I'm more interested in Leeds' record with regard to winning the penalty counts on a game by game basis rather than an abstract total drawn from a selection of games that excludes knock-out football. The instructions from the RFL to their officials is very relevant to the counts as can be any effect caused by the introduction of new officials. For example in 2010 James Child averaged (in Leeds games) 20.5 penalties set against the season average (excluding Child) of 15.6 That’s the best part of 16 penalties on to the total for no other reason than a new official getting up to speed. Not that it’s only the inexperienced official that can skew the count when you have Silverwood operating in a range of 9 to 24 in Leeds games that year. Using the nett figure removes the RFL and variance of officials from the calculation on the broad assumption that referees will be either good or bad on any given day but equally good or bad to both sides.




It indicates that the increase originated at Red Hall rather than at Kirkstall. It wasn't an issue confined to Headingley it was being felt all over the league at the same time. That also implies by and large that the coach is fairly powerless to prevent it initially and can only adjust to the new interpretations as they evolve over the season. And has already shown the increase at Leeds undershot the increase experienced by the league generally in two of the three seasons under McClennan.



Yes you’ve proven your simplistic point which was never being challenged. Well done.

Is that even an issue when Leeds will have equally risen up the table for penalties received to compensate? It's all relative but you insist on only looking at one side of the equation.



I seem to remember New Zealand nilling Australia to win a tri-series Final under McClennan, if they did that by kicking lumps out of them then so much the better. Do we really want to compare Smith and McClennan’s record in the International arena?



I might if it was a relevant factor. Where did I challenge your point? I asked by what criteria you were judging a decline in discipline under McClennan and I think you referred to dissent, type of penalties and the position on the field that they were conceded. I merely asked to see some detail to back this claim but unfortunately none has been forthcoming. You state your assessment is based upon on your own observations, fair enough, although it has to be said you regard Union as entertaining to watch so people should perhaps bear that in mind. Yes I know the last bit was irrelevant but two can play at that game.




A coach (and captain) trying to understand and in turn reduce the number of penalties his side was conceding is irrelevant?



What I produced suggests that at the end of McClennan’s first season in charge the team he inherited had maintained it’s league position, winning more games, scoring more points and conceding fewer over the course of a tougher programme due to the WCC and a longer run in the Challenge Cup which included vanquishing their conquerors from the previous season.

If that was down to the previous coach then lets hear your congratulations to McClennan for the 2011 success.



I think Exeter addressed this point adequately earlier on.




I get it you don’t rate McClennan.

__________

Have fun with your reply but I doubt there's anything more for me to add to the discussion.

After reading the last 19 pages I'm firmly of the opinion that Darryl Powell is the only post-millennium coach worthy of a place.