IMO that's what every one is hoping and the main grumble about the Huddersfield game as their wasn't any improvement from the Hull KR game.

So the Burgesses more importantly Sam wouldn't have signed with out McNamara yeah right.

If we hadn't let Hull KR come 60 meters from the scrum they wouldn't have got close enough.

A Saints side missing one of their most influential players and containing 4 teenagers with 1 making his debut and the other 3 having made 7 appearances between them.
I take it you mean Menzies and how much did that crystal ball cost you.

Hello darkness my old friend...

Fair point, I was grumbling as much as anybody on the way out, talking about "dumb" rugby with a lack of creativity.

But it is early in the season, we have not had any consistancy even this early, both in our scheduling and in the injuries we've picked up and we could still have had results against two decent teams on form even with us playing that badly. So I stand by my notion that its not as desperate yet as some people think IMHO (other people obviously differ in expectation I guess)

I just think we need to stick to saving severe critisim for after a decent run of games and then see where we are, after say, I dunno, 10 games??? sure I heard that somewhere

"Hood et al" doesn't add up to much - Hood says he never wanted the job on a permanent basis and our board of directors is pretty sply populated. That's not to decry the job they've been doing - people like to take the p.ss out of Odsal pipedreams but regardless of whether this comes off or not the club seem to have worked their ar5e off to make it a possibility by building a grand coalition of partners. But I think it's a lot to expect that they be intimately involved with the playing side of things.

When it comes to onfield matters, things have been largely left to SM AFAIK. I think the strategy is a good one that has worked in other sports - Wenger, Moyes, Ferguson, O Neill all seem to be in charge of all aspects football-related. Now you're right to raise the question as to what happens if he clears off. For many of the young players he has brought through, the club's unique selling point - Steve McNamara - would have gone and so they would be open to offers from elsewhere. However, better to have one inpermanent USP than none at all.

If SM leaves or gets hit by a bus then the club will have to cope as best they can. But let's hope that he isn't, and let's not shove him off the pavement ourselves, metaphorically or physically.

Oh dear, I may as well indulge you.

Why does every argument you have, have to be a case of "who/what is better than what we have"?

Wigan have made a couple of GF eliminators, Hull KR are showing improvement as are Catalans, Huddersfield, Wakefield (under Kear) and to a lesser extent, Castleford. Hull FC and Wire have disappointed obviously.

The fact remains though that clubs like KR, Wakey, Cas and the Cats are at least showing signs of improvement and a genuine hope. (In fact, it may have escaped your notice but the Catalans lost their manager to a superior side, hence was his achievements at the club.)

We are showing no improvement, a fact that you clearly refuse to accept despite plenty of opinion (evidence?) to the contrary?

However, as you wish to dwell on your on points, hows' about you answer the points I put to you about McNamara's signings?

Did you just ask why every argument has to follow a standard script?

I am asking why it is that af needs a solution to every problem before people are allowed to debate said problem.

Right. My mistake.

So like I said, the club has bigger, more fundamental problems than Steve McNamara not consistantly delivering trophies.

And if its true that the club has started laying people off, why do people assume we can afford to pay up McNamaras contract (and some other coaching staff with him presumeably) [iand [/ipay a new team of coaches possibly at a higher rate, as well during the same period, up to the end of this season when McNamaras contract expires anyway. On that note I am assuming the coaching staff budget is not within the salary cap budget??

And before anyone says we have the money as we were going to buy Bird, yes, obviously we could find the money from the playing staff if we needed it, point is, signing Bird [iwould [/iimprove the playing squad and so is money well spent, paying for two coaches at once which only [imight [/ibring an improvement and might as easily cause more disruption and a worsening of the situation is not in my opionion money well spent at this time....but my view on that is open to change as the season progresses.

Who knows, but your sneer is a blank fired, since they [isaid[/i that Mac was a highly persuasive factor, and the proof of the pudding is the signatures on the contracts.


And if the game hadn't ever kicked off, Hull KR wouldn't ever have had the ball to come 60 metres with. Your point?




Ah, yes, the [ireal[/i Saints would've whupped 'em, to borrow a phrase: yeah right . ..



From the stand it looked more Tadulala's ball that was spilled rather than Menzies spilling it but whatever, you understand the point.

Or if I need to spell it out, if we manage to successfully ground the ball then to me that makes us favourites to go on and win, and the score getting chalked off had the opposite effect of firing up Hudds, who will all have thought we had scored, and will have been enthused greatly by getting away with that one.

But as for crystal balls - why be such an ignorant ass? Unless when you read my post, your brain really does think I claim to KNOW for a FACT what WOULD have happened? Didn't you, like a normal person, work out that this is in MY OPINION? Didn't the phrase "almost certainly" indicate to you that this was not a crystal ball scenario?? Do I really have to preface every remark with "IMHO" just for your dozy benefit??? No? Well why make the dumb comment re crystal balls, then?

Tell you what, I'll stop predecting what might have happened within the next 5 minutes, if you stop predicting what would happen if the club sacked McNamara, OK Mr. Petulengro?

lost none of your patronising edge, then? Or maybe it's just natural now?


Which if we were so lucky as to have you for a remote Wigan fan instead of a Bulls fan, would have seen you roundly slating their coach for failure


.. which you are right about - even though it is stating the bleedin' obvious - yet it is not a factor you are prepared to take into account when we play them, when you revert to Auto-We-Should-Be-beating-teams-Like-These mode.




n fact we have shown a huge improvement in the pack, in the tackle and in the hit up. Our pack looks the best in the SL to me. Not that you would ever give it any credit. Where we have fallen short in the limited time on field so far is in attack, but however bad our attack has been, it has twice only very marginally fallen short of beating both opponents, having only drawn against HKR in the last kick of injury time, and having dropped the ball over the try line against Hudds. These are btw simple facts, not excuses. If we had won both games, this would not make our attack suddenly great, but you need to be honest and truthful about where we are, and as normal, you're not. You just look at the result in the paper, and rub your hands with glee.

ANd I am asking why you have to tediously whinge about debate being stifled when people put differing points of view! Who is "not allowed"? What is "not allowed"?? When was it "disallowed"???

You can debate af's points, or not. It's up to you. The reason you don't isn't because you're not "allowed" to, it's because you have no answer to the points af makes, and that is plain for all to see.

It is, btw, nothing to be ashamed of, so don't take on so. But you might, in front of your log fire with a malt whisky, maybe just once , even for a second, consider that he may have a point?

He does indeed, like the team do.

However, the one point the team has is not good enough either.

I don't follow you here. Can you explain it for me?

Cheers for meeting the "Who's done better?" challenge. You said Wigan, I say...


Nobby has been in charge for only seventy-odd rounds and he's already had twenty-one results that I have no doubt you would describe as unacceptable, including some outlandish ones such as the home thrashing by Huddersfield and the near sixty-pointer at MM that have no parallel at Bradford during the McNamara era. And what's notable is that he had more in his third year than he did in either of his first two.

Maybe this coaching game is harder than it looks.

And FWIW, here are Bradford's 'unacceptable' losses over the same period...


Similar to Nobby, but better. Striking how Bulls have been competitive in every game save three - the Headingley fiasco, the 30-nil and when we had to put a second string out at Huddersfield that time.

I'm glad someone has taken the time to put the full facts on. Looking at that what do all the Macca doubters have to say? The most painful had to be the 44-2 or 30-0 at Leeds though.

What about the Wigan side that beat a rampant Bradford 31-30 in the play-offs in 2007 when the game was completely finished?

And followed up the play-off win in 2008?

Nothing will ever be as painful as the 31-30 game for me.

... you hope. Cheesegrater to the scrotum could change your mind.

I should probably add "

".

. Or is that "icon_wink.gif"

?

You should have added an "e" in cheesgrater too squire.

Yup.

I'm still not sure it could be as painful as either of the 2 Wigan games or the Leeds games. I'm not willing to try and find out though.