So despite the fact that McNamara was there, he deliberately left Scruton out of the England side so he could play against Crusaders, it was his signings and players on the pitch playing his tactics it was all Lee St Hilaires' doing?

Mwuhahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

The worst thing is that no only do you actually believe this, you think that other people will read it and start believing it too!

That is because I [iwas[/i right all along. You should have listened at the start.

You really are as ignorant as they come!

Take the players out of any team we were missing and your on a hiding to nothing! the fact we've had to do it for a few weeks now has cought us up, prior to that we could hold our own with anybody in the league, you were very quiet then funny now we are doing poorly your back out all guns blazing with a huge i told you so grin!

The fact i don't think you can grasp is Bradford have allways been the poor relation to many in RL, we've been able to compete over the last 12 years due to a massive input from sky, the pay off from the council and some shrude marketing by the club, thats now dried up, and we are back in the position we were pre super league (days you probably didn't know exsisted) thats the legacy of being a Bradford fan for 30 years! Not the gimmicky Bulls fan your portraying yourself as!!!

Text amended. See later posts and the Bullseye sticky - BP. . . . . . although you seem free to spill your bile regardless, that is not a matter for me. I will just respond to your post, and not to your personal jibes.

I would firstly suggest the idea that an England coach would deliberately leave a player out of the national team just so he could give an advantage to his own club side is the height of delusion, and libellous.

Next, I did not say "it was all St Hilaire's doing" and I do strongly object to being grossly misquoted in this way. I pointed out the facts, and whilst I can understand you ignoring them, they remain true.

There is no "worst thing". I have stated my opinion, and it is there to be discussed in a reasonable way. A response comprising of "Mwuhahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!







:lol" is not only puerile but actually pathetic, but the truth is, I have come not to expect any better from you.

I don't think you get it at all. Yes, there were players missing (Crusaders had injuries too incidentally, not that that is usually a consideration for people on here) but the effort put in by the ones that were playing (bar a couple of exceptions) was utterly diabolical.

As for "Holding our own with anybody in the league"? Where do you get that one from? We have beaten Cas, Salford, Wigan, Quins, Crusaders, Hull KR and Wakey (the exception being Wigan is this collection of outstanding quality)

We have lost to Hudds (twice, one thrashing), Saints (thrashing), Wire (Twice, one thrashing), Hull FC, Crusaders (twice - two thrashings one of which was a nilling) and Leeds. Hardly holding our with anyone in the league is it?

Also, it is interesting to note that against Wire the second time (when we had so many injuries) we actually did better than the first time we played them with pretty full squad. Why did we do so much better then?

So....



and



So if it was a one off by St Hilaire and nothing to do with McNamara yet it was not St Hilaires doing then? Whose was it then?

You did not say it in as many words, I accept, but your inference was quite clear. You can either put the blame on St Hilaire or you don't. Pick one and stick to it. However, St Hilaire was McNamara's chosen right hand man so if he is incapable it is more evidence of McNamara failing in being able to appoint the right people.

Well, that's the important thing I suppose.


As I have pointed out to others who have this problem of understanding, we are Bulls fans on a Bulls forum, and so you it would be odd to expect equally in-depth analysis or discussion of the squads of other clubs. For those who will actually dioscuss, that is.


I don't think anyone has said different, or at least it looked that way.


The league table shows at half way, when we'd played everyone once, we were in that position. It was on any view a considerable overachievement by the squad we had, but I can't see the point of discussing it with someone who will not accept that the league table at half-way is -at least - a very fair litmus btest of how a team has done so far.


An interesting question indeed. I'd say that in the phase and financial state the club was and remains, and the squad available, we were always likely to blow hot and cold; I thought we would be likely to improve as the season went on and as the new squad got used to each other. In fact we tended to do better overall than I expected, but inevitably had some bad days too. But in specific answer to the Warrington question, for someone who watches sport -any sport - it is an unanswerable question. It is trite to say that whatever the result last time, it is just 13 against 13 (or 11 against 11) and anything can happen on the day. We can beat Warrington, if we play like we did last time. We can lose heavily to Crusaders, if we play like last week. That is sport. Total consistency is the unachievable aim, but if you could predict how or why Team A would play against Team B, we'd all have been very rich off the pools or coupons long ago.

England played crap against USA and were lucky to draw. Is that the fault of the crap coach? You can't specifically say, but probably not, the players didn't seem to be energised to get after USA and overwhelm them, they didn't (clearly) play the way Capello wanted. Last time out against Warrington we did play like the coach asked, and showed what we are capable of. It would be nice (if dumb) to think we could maintain that level every week but sport isn't like that.

Anyway, your question ("Why did we do so much better then?"icon_wink.gif had the feel of a rhetorical one, but if not, then go on, why did we?

That's a really lame effort to dissemble about what I actually said, and I must say I am getting tired of you ascribing stuff to me that i have not said.


Eddie, life isn't so simple. It is foolish and naive to suggest that in any such situation you have to "pick" one single place to pin the donkey's tail of "blame" and I would not do any such thing. Inevitably it is always going to be a combination of factors, some bearing larger than others. The point in relation to St. Hilaire is that on this occasion it was he who had prepared the team for, and coached the team at and during, htat match, and to that extent, carries more responsibility for the performance than he normally would. For the same reasons, McNamara carries less of the responsibility than he normally would.

However my clear and stated view is that the main factor against Crusaders was the attitude of many of the players. You prefer to blame everything on the coach, but that's your hobby-horse, and it is just too simplistic to be taken seriously. yes, like a resigning Minister, the coach ultimately carries the can, (and 'twas ever thus) but may not actually be the main culprit.


I did not say he was incapable, though. That was you. I was pointing out a fairer way to consider how responsibility for the Wrexham performance might be allocated (1. Players 2. St. Hilaire etc...) - given McNamara was off away with Engalnd that week. That is all. One result doesn't make St Hilaire a failure any more than it could make him the leading coach in the game.

Just adding to what I previously said, though, I did say in my comments about the Crusaders match that it looked to me as if there was some sort of trouble in the camp, whatever that might be. Well, we now know that Orford is out for the season, and I'm sure the players must have known this. That must have come as a crushing blow on top of everything else and in my opinion seems very likely to have had much to do with it. That is not - before you try to twist my words again - "making excuses" for the players. But they are (you may accept) human, and mentally, things like that, and the devastating manner of getting knocked out of the Cup, DO have a significant effect - whether you think they should or not.

Thats the beauty of the cup! you manage to catch that on on the bbc did you?

I know he didn't get much time, but Crossley's stats look ok.

8.2 metres per carry, 14 tackles, no missed tackles, no errors, no penalties.

Once Lynch is back I wouldn't mind seeing Koppy dropped instead of Crossley (providing Crossley goes well over next few weeks)

stats dont tell the whole story. I know its harsh but on the little we saw of crossley on sunday my initial impression was of an old fashioned fat prop. Didnt seem to do much but trundle the ball up. That said I dont think he did anything particularly wrong and should get more gametime when he can hopefully make more of an impression. At this stage I wouldnt include him at expense of kopczak.

Crossley went OK for me, what did he get 15 mins?

Crossley does look like he carries a bit too much lard but the interchange props need more time on the field IMO.

Crusaders really are turning into your bogey side now. Am I right in thinking that Bradford will go down in history for the following?

1) The first side to lose to Crusaders
2) The first side to be nilled by Crusaders
3) The first side to record two losses in a season against the Crusaders

When you think about it, it is a bit odd, as despite all the doom and gloom the Bulls under McNamara have never really been a side propping up the bottom of the table. Even when there was more money at the club's disposal there were the bizarre cup and play-off games in which the Bulls let big leads slip against Catalans and Wigan. What appears to be lacking is the wrong mentality amongst the players which is stopping them play for the full 80 minutes, which is something the coach should have addressed by now. Instilling mental toughness must be one of the first priorities of your new coach, especially as you will not have the bank balance to compete with other clubs for the services of marquee players etc.

It's Ok. For one thing, I don't think that the sort of history books you refer to are actually ever read by anyone, except trolls of the future searching for wind-up material.

For another, Crusaders are managed by our old boy Nobby, and we all know that he can't coach either.

It [iwas[/i actually. First he picked two unfit players (King and Milner) and a diddy goalkeeper. Then, when Milner went off he put on a right winger who cannot get a game at his club, on the left wing. The team had no shape, and, with International quitter Carragher getting a game (another Capello mistake) they had no pace at the back.

=#FF4000
Text removed.

MYSTIC, TAKE A LOOK [url=http://viewtopic.php?f=19&t=458510HERE[/url/ [iPLAY[/i NICELY OR NOT AT ALL- BP

This is a gentle reminder to ALL posters - PLEASE read and adhere to the sticky from Bullseye (AND all the Mods) on the main index.

Are people still banging on about the Crusaders match?

It's old news we've got tomorrow to look forward to now.

Wait a minute. I say FA knows sod all about RL and it gets removed yet he calls me a nasty piece of work and it remains. Can someone please explain this?

Yup - I can - I hadn't seen it.

If you, or anyone, has [iany [/iissue with comments posted / feel that posts are in breach of the AUP / the Bullseye sticky, please let any of the Mods know so that we are aware / can address it.

As in Bullseye's sticky, we are not on here 24/7 and so it's possible that we will miss the odd thing. Please use PM's to notify Mods rather than straying off topic / running the risk of stating public debates on "he said / she said".

Get it locked BP the Crusaders match is old news. Dead and buried now we've got a young team out there looking to gun down one of the top teams in the SL tomorrow. I'd rather concentrate on that rather than raking up the past.

Cool. Just a shame his "edited" post was not given the honour of being done big and bold in bright colours with a warning on it too. If it had it been perhaps that would have been fairer.

Without wishing to be drawn into anything, and only on the basis that this thread seems to have run its course so can't be derailed, I'll just say that there is a big difference between pointing out (correctly if too personally) the nastiness in a specific post, as I did, and the making of a purely gratuitous and provocative disparaging remark, as you did. I took exception to what you had said and the manner you said it. You were just taking a cheap random shot and, bluntly, being personally offensive for no reason and with no provocation. I wasn't. I would (deep breath) wish to apologise for calling you "a nasty piece of work", which went too far.

I am not going to take issue with or even comment on the modding, as rightly the mods do their jobs as they see them, but the reason I have decided to respond to that is because I have to state publicly that you simply can't equate my post with your post, which is what you're trying to do.

I should think so too. Apology accepted.

Lets quit while we're ahead . . . . . .and I have to start handing tissues out . . . . .

LOCKED