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.

Bump.

Why hasn't he been inducted yet?

Slightly OT- this hall of fame could be massive in a couple of years time if players are included. When the likes of McGuire, Sinfield, Burrow, JJB and Bailey reitre there will be a case to be made for adding them all to the HOF.

That's not to mention Senior and Ali who have left the club but will still go down as legends.

Makes you realise just how good the past few years have been for the club!

ABSOLUTELY

I have a copy of the 2004-ish '100 Greatest Players' book. A good number of players from our recent successful period would get into there. What's really sad is that in that book they include the likes of Trevor Paterson (very good, but for less than a full season when we won nowt) and John Gallagher and Eric Grothe more for the fact they were big names than anything they did on the field.

Hopefully the 2020 version will have got rid of all of the makeweights. As it is, you'd have to add Senior, Sinfield, Burrow, McGuire, Diskin, Bailey, JJB, Senior, Ali, Hall, Peacock and probably Ablett, Webb, Leuluai etc. Would Buderus be in there? What about 4-time winner Kirke (lights blue touchpaper and retires......)?

Just to bring some balance to this argument, do you remember Huddersfield under Smith, not sure what their penalty count was but I bet they weren't one of the lowest, in 2003 they were the dirty gets of SL with guys like Jim Gannon, Jamie Bloem in the team

I had the 100 greates players ,but its one book I discarded

I'd like to give this thread a bump. Despite these being our glory years it seems the door is shut on our hall of fame! Was it decided Bluey (the first coach to ever bring Leeds back to back success) doesn't warrant inclusion? Possibly because of his 3rd season disappointment? Surely guys such as Keith & Ali deserve to at least be considered too. Could inclusion in the SS hall of fame be a voted for annual thing (one per year)?

Just a thought

Surely all three will be at some point.

good idea. senior and bluey should be inducted without a shadow of a doubt

I'm shocked Senior isn't there to be fair

All 3 should be in there along with Webb imo.

We'll take a look at additions to the Hall of Fame over the close season. I will be looking for any more nominations which I will then shortlist and contact the main advocates for arguments as to why?

The only rule is that they must have completed their Leeds playing or coaching careers. There is a very large group of players within a few years of retirement who will undoubtedly be considered once the finish playing.

I look forward to being consulted.

Can any of the obvious be left out?

Where is the link (too lazy to look, sue me)?

Is Ali in there? Because he blinkin' well should be!

I would also like to nominate academy product, 4 time GF winner and Harry Sunderland trophy winner Matt Diskin if he isn't in already.

If they're both in, please carry on as you were.

'kay.
Thanks.
Bye.

got to be retired mate, although disko may as well be!