The result yesterday was another shocker but the only person who will ensure that McNamara leaves the club appears to be McNamara himself.

TBH I dunno how he can be bothered with the current scenario. The club are unperforming, he has become a laughing stock and hardly any fans really want him at the club anymore (apart from a few desperate, but dwindling Macca Backers) and I really do not see how he can continue to hold his head high. If the guy had any dignity he would just walk away and admit that the job is too big for him to do at this stage of his career. That way, he could maybe start afresh at a lower level and maybe then learn the job at a place where he would not be under so much pressure to succeed and possibly come back a better coach.

If this carries on, no-one would take him on IMO.

The sooner he goes, the better and his weekly claptrap in the T&A does little to suggest that he actually [idoes[/i have a clue whatsoever.

This is HIS team now and look where we are. He has been a complete failure and he will only continue to drag us down further the longer he stays.

Well reasoned post.

No it's not, it is my view, and I give it in probably far more detail than I ought. So don't tell me what I think. What I say IS what I think. I have no reason or wish to "make excuses" of any sort.


I wouldn't buy that anyway, indeed the thought of the likes of Menzies being "unsure of his role" I find actually quite funny. But I don't need to buy it, as it is the players who have, repeatedly publicly stated that it was them not carrying out the game plan, and not the lack of/wrong game plan. So you don't need to theorise. Admissions have been made.


Defensive patterns are in place and the players know how to operate them. We have seen that. It is the inexplicable spells where they won't play as a team that cost us all season long and that is much more therefore not doing what the coaches say than not being coached.

Anyway I don't really see why you seem so intent on contradicting my personal opinion that the lion's share of the blame here rests with the players. McNamara is far from absolved in my reckoning, the season is a disaster on any view and as head coach (as I keep getting told) he carries ultimate responsibility but I am not dealing in cliches or truisms, but in the detail of what I see.

And 90% of the glaring ricks I saw at HKR were not even things you ought to need to mention to a Super League standard player. What would the session be? "This week we're going to concentrate on not dropping the ball"?



Don't misquote me, I am not absolving McNamara of any blame, I am saying the players take the majority of the blame. As someone who thought our pack would be among the best in the league, even if our backs were less than great, I can hardly blame him for the unexpected slumps in performance. Indeed I still can't quite work out, looking at what we have had available, how it has come to this. But anyway in a nutshell, the question would be is he respnsible because these players are in fact crap? Or is he responsible because it was reasonable to think they were good but they have played crap? Even now, the majority seem to want to keep Menzies, Morrison, Burgess, Newton, Scruton, Kopczak. Is anyone suggesting that these are crap players? Nobody who knows anything.


Maybe none. Maybe lots. It depends on something we'll never know i.e. whether any other coach could have done better with this lot.

... were it not for the odd fact that the players repeatedly and to the point of ad nauseam seem insistent that he does inspire confidence.

... and you've failed since it isn't really our attack that is the problem. I don't know if you noticed, but we score a fair share of points for bottom-of-the-pile nog-enders.



I am 100% certain that the main reason we are where we are is repeated defensive capitulation spells that can last 10, 15 or 20 minutes. After that, the secondary reason is the ludicrous and embarrassing number of times we give up possession/field position in countless bizarre ways.

While at times on opponent's line undoubtedly we do look lethargic and lacking ideas, that is NOT in the top two reasons why we are where we are. I don't see how you could sensibly argue it was.


But it's not, you see. It may be, or it may not be, or it may be a combination of coaching and players inexplicably doing crap things. My view is the latter predominates. You certainly can't sensibly say that a coach is responsible for all the horrendous catalogue of schoiolboy howlers we came up with at HKR. Can you?


Warrington? Am I reading this correctly? Warrington have lost 10, we've lost 12, but we've played 1 game less. They've scored 451 points against our 414 but again in one extra game. Given the agonising close-shave defeats we've (undeniably) had, and the highly comparable attacking stats, I can't believe you're holding Wire up as some sort of example of where we should be. They're 8th. Last year they finished 5th. Season before 7th. Season before 6th. The season before that, 4th. Yet you see some sort of coaching transformation? On which planet?!

You clearly were not reading it correctly then.

The point being made is the change in fortunes at Wire since they got rid of a failing coach and replaced him with a more successful one.

IMO of course.

I'm not telling you what to think, largely because I'm not very interested in what you think. I find your line by line responses (to me and others) to be full of tortured logic, veiled personal insult, and willful misinterpretation combined with some preposterous sense of self righteousness. As the latter seems unshakable I'm going to stick with ignoring you.

Completely spot on.

By my reckoning we've dropped 12 league points (against Cas twice, Wakey away, Celtic, Salford and HKR) and been knocked out of the cup in games that we looked to be more than capable of winning, that we were winning and that we should have won.

Those defeats have ruined our season. There have been just too many of those types of performance.

Its seems to me to be acadmic to argue whether the problems are down to the players or the coach. The problem is that the coach has recruited far too many inconsistent players.

After the Wigan defeat I expressed my opinion that it was too early to sack the coach and that we should wait until July to see how the season progresses. I really cannot see us progressing under the current coach. We need a change.

Great, I'm now banned from my local Doctors due to reading that when waiting for my appointment - I read it with orange juice in my mouth when sat next to a really old lady, she wasn't too pleased with getting Orange Juice on her face.

Instead of looking at the 12 points we've dropped you should also consider the 4 we got that our form suggested was beyond us i.e. Saints and Leeds.

But what is this "change of fortunes" of which ye speak? Bearing in mind the form to which I drew attention?

More a case of emperor's new clothes, to my eyes.

They were below us before changing coach, now they are above us. Simples.

But you were, you said I was making excuses, which is just wrong.

I don't do much personal insult except where merited and none was intended but if you want to perceive invented "veiled" insults there's not much I can do about that.

As for "self-righteousness" - who was it who just said "largely because I'm not very interested in what you think",that what I thought was a detailed thoughtful response was just "full of tortured logic, veiled personal insult, and willful misinterpretation"? It's not. It's what I think. And it's very self-righteous of you to believe you can diss the whole argument by an ad hominem response.

Are you just one of those people who can't abide someone having a different viewpoint? Or is it that you don't want to face the possibility that I have a point?

I think even you would have to agree that Warrington's form has improved no end under their new coach. With the same players. So the new coach has improved the team. How els can it be explained?

Yes they are still not world beaters and are not challenging for top spot, but even if we won all our remaining fixtures, neither would we be.

The 1982 Aussies couldn't score if you had the ball, could they

Just to clarify things, I also brought up the wire example, in another thread, in responce to a point about if a new coach could change the fortunes of the same bunch of underperforming players. I feel the Wire example is a valid one;

Warrington for the first month of the season played 4 lost 4. Looked shambolic at times but decent in spells, and were putting in performances that you would not have expected looking at thier playing roster pre season. Just like us. They then changed coach to Tony Smith and since that point they have a 68% win ratio (pld 19 won 13, inc CC) which is almost identical to Huddersfields win ratio in third place (69% inc CC) Our current win ratio is 32% BTW. So although thier league placing is not too much distant to ours the form is vastly superior and is that of a top 4 side not a bottom four side.

So there is a very good argument IMHO that if Tony Smith had been in charge from day one and repeated the ratio all season Wire [icould [/ibe 3rd/4th as well as in the cup semi. That is a highly significant turnaround of performance from the same squad (one player exchage Gleeson for Mathers excepted) achieved on the face of it purely and simply by changing coach....nothing else changed as far as I am aware but I'd be happy to hear other reasons for the turnaround.

Im not saying we could have/should have had the same change or that the results would have followed similar patterns, but merely pointing out that you cannot say a change a coach [iwould not [/ihave any effect, as there is clear evidnece from within this season from wire that change [ican [/i and has had a positive impact. I'd also suggest that if Smith guides the club to the Cup Final that would pay back any cost involved in the coaching changes, and would wire fans agree the change in coach prompted the turnaround in performance? I dont know, but I'd guess yes.

Not saying its the answer for every club, or us, but it can clearly work IMO and should never be ruled out just on principle.

"Even I"? I hardly ever discuss Warrington - how come I've got form?



My point was that even if their form has improved they really aren't a role model for us, now are they? My god, up from 10th to 8th in the league - wow - yes, pedantically that is an improvement. It certainly is by NO means an improvement that might not have been acchieved anyway.
but is it the sort of "improvement" that would make our critics happy?



Are you saying we would be happy to be where they are? I mean, smartarrsed quips aside - REALLY? Because I don't really see that they are doing [ithat[/i much better than us and I certainly don't recall the critics ever saying the Bulls would be coached by an obvious god if he could get them up to 8th.

Which was his point.



I'm sending you a new sarcasm detector as yours appears to be broken.

That sums up all the points I wanted to make but much better! Well done.

I would, for one, be happy with their form, yes. And with a play off place.

I am not holding Wire up as an example of what we are aiming for, but merely pointing out (as argued much more eloquently by Duckman above) that you can not argue that there has not been an improvement in their performance since a change of coach. I'm not saying that it would work for us, its just a fact.

Ah, stats. Which can be made to look as if they demonstrate anything. All I will say is that if a 68% ratio shows a good coach, then 2006 (where we got 34/56 SL points) = 60.7% and 2007 (where we got 35/54 SL points) = 64.8%.
These stats, by the same token, would tend to strongly support an argument that McNamara can coach at least to a similar success ratio. Bearing in mind the latter is over a full season, and 2007 (if memory serves) included 4 fixtures against Leeds, it's a proof, rather than an argument. And the season before too, although he was only coach for part of it.

Leeds were champions in 2007 when we were unfortuante enough to play them four times. Using the same calcs their coach scored 37/54 in 2007 = 68.5% Does this compare OK with McNamara's 64.8%? I'd say so.

In case you think this is a defence of McNamara, it isn't. It's a statement of the facts, just to show that the stats you cite are not in reality a sign of a vastly superior coaching setup. We've pretty much been there, done that under McNamara.

In every season there will be a couple of exceptional wins such as those against Leeds & St Helens. Its also to be expected that there will be a couple of rank bad performances eg Wigan away, Wolves at home. Those should really be discounted.

The 7 games that we've basically thrown away suggest a more serious malaise and really cant be ignored.

I agree with the last comment, but absolutely not discounting the wins against Saints and Leeds. They make things worse, as they show what the team can do if it wants.

I doubt he can TBH. He is either a professional dunce or else he is a damn fine actor.

Either way, it looks stupid.

But isn't the argument about their win/lose ratio before Smith and after Smith?

Which is something like (I can't really be bothered to look so roughly):
Before: 20%
After: 68%

Thats quite an improvement.

Indeed. But if you read my post again you will note it was in argument for the potential positive momemtum a change in coach has given warrington, not an argument against McNamara;

Warrington 2009 under Jimmy = bottom 4 form.
Warrington 2009 under Smith = top 4 form.

They improved under smith, that was the point, not to hold up the wire coaching set up as the one we must have. This was not a one off magic trick and could be made to work elsewhere, this was the supplementary point.

That is why I showed the percentage stats as that is the only way we can compare like with like to demonstrate to people who don't seem to grasp the point that a 68% win ratio is better than Cullen or Jimmy managed, hence improvement, best shown by how many games a team wins.

And we have had upper 60% win ratios under McNamara you're right, which is why you wont be able to find a single post of mine that says he is not a good coach. You will also not find a post where I have called for him to go. But just because he's done a couple of times it doesn't mean he'll be able to do it again, just as one dismal season does not mean we cannot turn it around to a positive ratio next season.