Yes, because Bird and Menzies have travelled across the globe in order to play for the legendary coaching skills of the internationally revered tactical genius that is Steve McNamara?








Whilst I admit the signing is a good one, the problem of the coach remains as far as I am concerned. The signing of Bird still does not change the fact that McNamara is all too often seeming to be lacking in the abilities required to successfully coach a top RL side.

After all, it hardly takes a rugby league genius to be able to identify that Bird can play a bit, a point proven by the likes of yourself, Beechwood Bull and 6 Iestyn 6 "bigging him up"

Well, you made the statement, in your usual OTT way, laden with heavy sarcasm intending it to be rhetorical, with the answer "NO" in your view being soooo obvious, nobody would need to read it. And, you think it's hilarious, which speaks volumes.

Al I can say is that the answer is, of course "Yes". Either that, or we have been wrongly deluded into thinking that the players who have signed / re-signed have done so despite believing the coach is an utter dud, thus condemning themselves to mediocrity or worse.


.. Eddie, tip: you're sounding like a real bitter schmuck. Nobody has even remotely set up that ludicrously overblown claim for you to 'shoot down' except obviously somewhere in your own head. All these top players one by one agreeing to play for McNamara despite your doom-laden valedictions must be galling, but fourth-form hyperbole won't make your case look better.


That's an indication of your problem. We make a great signing, but you give away your irrational prejudice by needing to "admit" it is a good signing.


Well, there you go. I bet he won't sleep. But hang on . .. .


As no team could finish second with anything short of an excellent coach, I call upon you to explain your duplicity. Or are you hedging your bets so whatever happens, if you backed every horse, you can claim to have backed the winner?


Edited for accuracy.


Don't know what the point is of that comment. Unless it is your muddled belief that McNamara or the Bulls have claimed to have "discovered" Bird, in an "unearthed talent" sort of way? The point, as to which you are in denial, is that Bird - like the others - made the choice to play for McNamara.

And I prefer his assessment of McNamara to yours. Before you ask, the assessment which is evident from voting with his feet, and his biro. Same as I did with Burgess, Menzies, Scruton, mini-Burgesses, international juniors, et al.

PS What "bigging up" exactly have I done; and what "bigging up" does a current origin half back need?

In the case of Scruton, Menzies and Bird, ££££££££££££££'s. Worrincy and Sheriffe just could not believe their luck.



As I said on the other thread, I reckon we can finish second because the standard of the other sides around us seems to have dropped somewhat. We may well finish second, but, for fear of hedging my bets, we could also finish about sixth. The fact is, I believe we have the PLAYERS at the club that are capable of finishing in the top two. However, I still remain unconvinced that we have the COACH in order to do so.



As for finishing second requiring an excellent coach to be in charge? I bet Chelsea fans hold Avram Grant in high regard!

I thought you rated a lot of McNamara's signings as poor?

Up till now, Platt, Nero, Sykes, Godwin and Jeffries have not done enough and they need to push on.

Lynch, Newton, Burgess, Deacon, Langley, Cook have nothing to do with his signing policy.

Tadulala has gone well, Morrison was a good signing (but a tad injury prone) and Bird and Menzies look shrewd.

Solomona has generally failed to deliver the "X Factor" that McNamara signed him for, Finnigan was average at best, Feather was a dud and Tupou has been worse than Feather was.

However......

The top five players I mentioned must do better this season, and alongside the one or two quality players we now have, we could do a lot better, especially, as I mentioned earlier that I believe that our rivals are weaker this year than last.

Obviously the jury will also be out on Worrincy and Sheriffe.

But yeah, generally his signings HAVE been poor for us, but if he and they can rectify this then we MAY finish in the top 2.

you really are clutching at straws now eddie

I see, you believe the first 3 are here for nothing but the money. They'd have gone to Gateshead for another tenner. OK

And you think Worrincy and Sheriffe are rubbish signings. OK


All got better coaches, but their standards have dropped. So despite our useless coach we'll beat the lot. OK








You forgot 1,3,4,6,7,8,9,10.......

these being the players that you have so roundly derided for the last year. The players that you have castigated McNamara for signing from your idea of crap clubs. Players who are not good enough, who 'can't believe their luck'. OK


Really? Well why have you never said so before?


And now you are comparing our squad to Chelsea of recent past. The final proof that you have lost the plot. If you ever had it.

Eh?????

What is incorrect with my assessment with the players?

Now you talk about losing the plot? You said that that a team needs an excellent coach in order to finish second in the table. I pointed out that Avram Grant did it and he was a complete dud whom the Chelsea fans wanted out ASAP. I did not compare our squad to Chelsea's (despite you making up the fact that I did). I was merely highlighting your point about coaches and giving a case against the argument.

Come on, if you have to pick holes in every opinion I give, at least do not resort to making things up that were never actually said. It really does you no favours whatsoever.

It does


Except, of course, he was anything but. But you would have to be an unbiased observer to note this.


Are you a Chelsea fan too? Who the fans want out rarely makes any difference.


Either you made a valid comparison or you didn't. Which is it? Either you were comparing Grant at Chelsea with McNamara at Bradford, or you weren't. If the actual sports teams involved don't count in the comparison, then it's a bonkers analogy, isn't it?

The reality is that Chelsea's performance in the Grant year clearly demonstrated that, while his persona and personality did not endear him to anyone, Grant clearly proved that he is a top class soccer coach.

But let's consider Grant's case in a bit more detail. It's worth it, because you are using the coach with the best winning ratio in the history of Chelsea FCas an example of a dud coach. You are using the case of a man who in the space of only a few months, in taking over the hottest of seats from the revered Mourinho, inherited a team which was in sixth place in the Premier League. They were negative and boring and had just had that poor draw with Rosenborg. They were transformed under Grant, they finished second, in what Grant turned around into a battle that went to the wire. Personally I am sure that if he had had the team from day one, they would have beaten Man U to the title, but the handicap of coming from sixth place proved just a fraction too much.

You are clearly implying that Grant is a worse coach than Mourinho (at least) yet in the previous 3 years, Mourinho had never got Chelsea to a Champions League Final. Avram Grant did, and they only lost the Final on penalties.

And you are the man calling him "a dud coach"!!!

I think I can see where you are coming from, though. The error you make is that you don't judge Grant by what he actually achieved, you don't consider his actual performance. You are assessing Grant on nothing else but the basis that you don't like him.


You do know this is a discussion board, right? What are they for?

You also know that you pretty much [inever[/i respond to the holes that I pick, which leaves your arguments resembling a 50 year old fishnet.

I don't "have" to pick holes, there are more holes in your arguments than in a Swiss cheese factory. And of course if there were no holes to pick . . .


I make nothing up. In closing, as is your typical MO, you invent a position and then argue from that. Now [ithat[/i is making things up that were never actually said. It really does you no favours whatsoever.

And in keeping with your MO, you haven't (as ever) answered on a single hole that I picked. Which is presumably because although you bluster, privately you must know they were good and fair points.

And as you will completely ignore the above points, which as ever, you can't answer.

Perhaps Eddie should consult this:
[url=http://rlfansdictionary.tripod.com/RLFANS Dictionary[/url

[iFerocious Aardvark Old school RSRLer previously trading under names such as "Russell Smith's Mother" and, latterly "Russell Smith's Optician". Entering debate with FA has widely been considered ill-advised, if only because even on occasion when he is on weak ground, his inability to concede defeat will ensure a lengthy and not very productive debate over mundane minutiae, much of it stored away in his vast and complex series of spreadsheets maintained in seemingly great (although not 100% accurate on occasion) detail. A Bulls fan, FA considers the Bradford forum his own personal fiefdom.[/i

Is this thread now defunct with the news of the latest signing?

How very very true.

What's up Eddie - cat got your tongue?

Certainly no chance of it getting yours. It is too far up McNamara's rectum.

I think we will wait and see how the season pans out first. As I said, signing a decent player does not change the fact that SM is still lacking in a number of areas.

I'm happy to ignore your uncalled-for obscenities, but I'll just point out that, yet again, when whupped by analysis, logic and polite, thorough, reasoned argument, that's the best you can do in reply.

Sad, really, but speaks for itself.

How comforting for you.

Comfort is not an issue.


It does

Except, of course, he was anything but. But you would have to be an unbiased observer to note this.

Are you a Chelsea fan too? Who the fans want out rarely makes any difference.

Either you made a valid comparison or you didn't. Which is it? Either you were comparing Grant at Chelsea with McNamara at Bradford, or you weren't. If the actual sports teams involved don't count in the comparison, then it's a bonkers analogy, isn't it?

The reality is that Chelsea's performance in the Grant year clearly demonstrated that, while his persona and personality did not endear him to anyone, Grant clearly proved that he is a top class soccer coach.

But let's consider Grant's case in a bit more detail. It's worth it, because you are using the coach with the best winning ratio in the history of Chelsea FCas an example of a dud coach. You are using the case of a man who in the space of only a few months, in taking over the hottest of seats from the revered Mourinho, inherited a team which was in sixth place in the Premier League. They were negative and boring and had just had that poor draw with Rosenborg. They were transformed under Grant, they finished second, in what Grant turned around into a battle that went to the wire. Personally I am sure that if he had had the team from day one, they would have beaten Man U to the title, but the handicap of coming from sixth place proved just a fraction too much.

You are clearly implying that Grant is a worse coach than Mourinho (at least) yet in the previous 3 years, Mourinho had never got Chelsea to a Champions League Final. Avram Grant did, and they only lost the Final on penalties.

And you are the man calling him "a dud coach"!!!

I think I can see where you are coming from, though. The error you make is that you don't judge Grant by what he actually achieved, you don't consider his actual performance. You are assessing Grant on nothing else but the basis that you don't like him.

You do know this is a discussion board, right? What are they for?

You also know that you pretty much never respond to the holes that I pick, which leaves your arguments resembling a 50 year old fishnet.

I don't "have" to pick holes, there are more holes in your arguments than in a Swiss cheese factory. And of course if there were no holes to pick . . .


I make nothing up. In closing, as is your typical MO, you invent a position and then argue from that. Now that is making things up that were never actually said. It really does you no favours whatsoever.

And in keeping with your MO, you haven't (as ever) answered on a single hole that I picked. Which is presumably because although you bluster, privately you must know they were good and fair points.

And as you will completely ignore the above points, which as ever, [uyou can't answer[/u.

TBH, I cannot be bothered indulging you.

To put it simply, you said that a team that finishes second need to have an excellent coach. Not neccessarily so. After all, an excellent coach coach take a mid ranked side to a second place finish. A duff coach could take a team full of overwhelming favourites to second spot.

You also claim I do not like Avram Grant? Where did you get this from? I have no interest in the man and have no feelings on him either way. Again, you are just making things up.

TBH, I could give you answers till I was blue in the face but it would make no difference to you.

What you mean is, you have no answers.


Which did Grant do? What does that make him?


You do know we are talking about Grant's abilities as a coach, don't you? And that I was not under the impession that you know him personally, to like or dislike as a person? Right?

As a coach, you described him as " a dud ". I showed that up as rubbish and you can't answer my points.


Don't do that. Start small. Try answering just one.


You don't answer any points, instead feigning a hurt and puzzled persona, and again this is typical. the bottom line is it's not that you can't be bothered answering - you just won't ever admit when you're wrong. You can't answer.

Boring.

Yep, that's a checkmate.