There's a lot of upset being spouted (and rightly so), however don't get too upset by it all. We were bound to have this run of defeats and poor form once we got a few injuries.

Add into this all the uncertainty around the coach and many players being out of contract it's bound to have an effect on the place.

A few things I feel would help the feel of the place include:

1. We need to get the new man in charge for next season named at the very least. If he can come in straight away, all the better.

2. Sort out the contracts of the players who the new man wants to keep. Probably only Langley and Menzies are certainties of players out of contract who we would like to stay. Others out of contract need to be told that they are playing for their future at the club and see who steps up over the next few months.

3. If / when we get everyone fit - do we try to lay down some combinations for next year? For example, could Orford and Southernwood provide a partnership at half-back? I don't buy into SO and SH being totally different positions in the modern game. We could potentialy have two creative players in the halves then? What we saw yesterday suggests that Sykes and Kearney are not the guys to break defences with clever kicks or great passes.

4. If messers Reardon, Sherrife, Nero etc are going to be given the boot, can we play players like Wardle more regularly? I appreciate that it is a big step up for the lads, given that, for example, Wardle is only 18 and playing every week will be difficult to adapt to. However, if we knew we were getting these lads primed to play a lot more next year I could take defeat more easily. At least these young lads show pride and passion!

5. If we are light on numbers (and experience), can we get a loan player in? I know we've failed recently in this aspect, but surely there are other players out there who we may be able to get in? Could we not try get a player in on a short-term deal similar to the Rinaldi one?

6. Lets play players - especially the young lads - in their best position. Kearney has looked a revelation at FB, Halley couldn't tackle a 3 year old as the last line of defence and Reardon's body just isn't up to SL any longer. Addey doesn't seem to know where he's supposed to be playing which can't be good for him and the odd player, like Whitehead could do with a rest.

When we get most players back we should pick up the required wins to make the 8. There is a bit of a gap at the minute to 9th and all teams will still take points from one another to help this cause. We'll probably lose again at the weekend but after this we have 9 games left and 6 of those are against teams lower than us currently in the table.

It's those sort of in-match strategic decisions and the odd rotation/interchange policy that contributes to many thinking Macca's not up to the job. It's happened lots of times and been pivotal in some of our more infamous losses (taking off Lynch, Solomona and Newton in the play off game against Wigan and completely reversing the momentum).



This has also been a hallmark of his tenure, first it was back rowers and now fullbacks, everyone almost without exception said that Kearney was a fullback first and foremost, and he's looked far better playing in that position. We all know Reardon is a fullback and in the brief ten minutes he got the other week, he looked far more comfortable. He's been out of position so many times defensively on the wing Leon Cudjoe has had to put £20 a week away to buy him a Christmas present, just to return the favour.

If you have the match recorded just look at Beaver having to listen to St Hilaire during the half time talk, if he's not thinking 'I could do this better' he's an even better person than I already imagine. Frankly McNamara's show then no-show, leaving St Hilaire to carry the can smacks of very poor judgement.

Those are the worst problems for me. I can accept the limitations of players but too often it looks like the players don't want to be there.



I'm interested why you think Orford would make a difference but not Langley? Different positions I know but both are senior squad players and both have uncertainty surrounding their futures.

This is one of our biggest problems at the moment - we are being held to ransom by an apparently neglected youth policy of the late 90s/early 00s. There was a reason why we offloaded Sykes in the first place - he simply isn't good enough for a team who aspire to a "top 4 finish and final appearance". Nothing much changed in his years away, and I can't see any reason why the club would have anything to do with him if he wasn't home grown.

You would expect that this is a problem that will deminish over the next 2-3 years when the current crop of youngsters start to come on a bit. Obviously that is too long to wait for some, and of course it doesn't excuse yesterday's performance or make it any easier to take, but it is an interesting point IMO.

the positives?????

Wardle, Addy, Whitehead, Crossley.

I now want to see one of the Burgii and Southernwood given a shot. I would rather be turned over by crusaders if we had a chance to benefit from the experience, like Fielden, Deacon and Pryce did in '98.

building for the future means accepting ups and downs, but generally seeing an improvement. There are twentysomethings in our squad that dont have the capacity to improve, and who are being picked every week. there are also a number of teenagers knocking on the door for whom first team footy would help them develop.

I dont hold to this "play them too much and you'll ruin them" argument. If they are good enough, they are old enough. again, the examples of Pryce, Fielden and Deacon proves this as they went on to be the corenerstones of our most successful era.

Here's a few questions, of the players a lot of us would like to see the back of how many are actually out of contract? Of the players we'd like to keep how many are out of contract? This might give us an idea of what next years squad would look like..

Quote ="Spannerz"Here's a few questions, of the players a lot of us would like to see the back of how many are actually out of contract? Of the players we'd like to keep how many are out of contract? This might give us an idea of what next years squad would look like..'" See here: viewtopic.php?f=19&t=434050&start=0 Pretty much everyone out of contract in 2010. Thank god.

Quote ="Spannerz"Here's a few questions, of the players a lot of us would like to see the back of how many are actually out of contract? Of the players we'd like to keep how many are out of contract? This might give us an idea of what next years squad would look like..'" See here: viewtopic.php?f=19&t=434050&start=0 Pretty much everyone out of contract in 2010. Thank god.

so, if the list is accurate, here are my ideas, baring in mind of course that better options are available:

2. Ricky Sheriffe 2010 release
3. Paul Sykes "HOME GROWN" 2010 retain on reduced terms
4. Chris Nero OVERSEAS TRAINED 2010 retain if off quota on reduced terms
5. Stuart Reardon "HOME GROWN" 2010 release
11. Steve Menzies OVERSEAS TRAINED 2010 retain as a priority poss as dual coaching role
13. Jamie Langley (vc) "HOME GROWN" 2010 retain as a priority
16. Michael Worrincey 2010 release
17. Danny Sculthorpe 2011 activate 6 month release clause now
18. Craig Kopczak "HOME GROWN" 2010 release
23. Steve Crossley "HOME GROWN" 2010 retain

29. Joe Wardle "HOME GROWN" 2010 give improved deal now

31. Cain Southernwood 2013
32. Danny Addy "HOME GROWN" 2010 retain poss dual reg


Duane Straughier "HOME GROWN" 2010 retain, poss dual reg
I havent seen any academy/ u20 footy so cant really comment on the following:
Michael Tate "HOME GROWN" 2010
Liam Kay "HOME GROWN" 2010
Adrian Raw "HOME GROWN" 2010
Ben Helliwell "HOME GROWN" 2010
Tom Lilycrop "HOME GROWN" 2010
26. Andy Tate "HOME GROWN" 2010
30. Adam O'Brien "HOME GROWN" 2010

so without paying anyone off I would only release Kopczak, Worrincy, Reardon and Sherriffe. would this enable any coach to do enough surgery to our squad???

Depends on the money and quota situations.

I'd keep Sherriffe as he's not as bad as all that.

IMO we need a quality centre and a line breaking forward, and if Orford's not available we need a scrum half or stand off.

A thing that's bothered me since the loss of the Leeds and Warrington games is that it looks like so much was invested in those games that we're now seeing the team play like they've shot their bolt for 2010.

I expected us to struggle versus Hudders but we should have done better against Crusaders. Our defence seems to have lost it's early season steel. That's more concerning than anything. You can understand the attack struggling without Orford and Kearney lately but the defence?

Two games and that's it?

I'm not saying this is the attitude of the players, but if that was the case, they don't deserve to be in super league.

Super league isn't about investing in two games here and there it's about putting in that same performance every week. Other clubs don't have an issue with this, why should we?



Now there I see something different, I don't expect us to struggle against Huddersfield, (no dis-respect) I expect us to play to win games, isn't that why we're all here?

Apart from Scruton, Worrincy was your best player yesterday, he tackled well and was really the only one who looked dangerous in attack, I don't know why he gets such criticism.

Don't worry, there is always next week.

(come to think of it, the PT have been strangely quiet this week. I thought that there would be numerous positives for them to take?)

In fairness, would YOU want to admit that Worrincy is your second best player?

I think he's got great natural attributes and with proper coaching could make a very good player. Bradford fans do seem to be particularly spiteful and nasty towards their own team, sometimes it's even audible on the Super League website highlights.

and your talking to one of the main instigaters!

Oh aye. I have merely said all along what is quite clear to everyone now.

If action had been taken against McNamara long ago there would be far less vitriol towards the club now.

However, in the interests of fairness, YOU defend it.

The players who get stick have by and large repeated the same mistakes over and over. Platt's poor decisions at full back, Sheriffe for running sideways (even if he has been told to by his coach) and Worrency for constantly getting caught out in defending.
It's not been the result of making occasional mistakes but it's happened month after month and I understand why the crowd are getting on their backs. I've not booed but Worrency especially has made me swear repeatedly.

As you are determined to derail the Crusaders match thread into "I was right that McNamara can't coach aren't I clever" redux, I will make just one comment (which [idoes[/i relate directly to the thread, and which I already made, and which you ignore) and that is that the team McNamara was coaching last week did very well and played some excellent rugby. Whereas the team that played Crusaders was prepared for that match by Lee St. Hilaire.

The England match was pretty much a "one off" coaching effort by McNamara, since he had access to the players only in the week, and coached them in the lead-up to and during a one-off match. McNamara was not a virgin to the set-up, however, having worked as assistant there for some time.

The Crusaders match was pretty much a "one off" coaching effort by St. Hilaire, since he had access to the players only in the week, and coached them in the lead-up to and during a one-off match. St. Hilaire was not a virgin to the set-up, however, having worked as assistant there for some time.

The problem for those who want to rip into McNamara on every occasion is that on this occasion, it wasn't actually him. Do you want to give him credit for a pretty outstanding and entertaining England performance?

The only problem with your post above is that most SL sides would probably have beaten the French side on show at Leigh on Saturday, never mind the cream of the crop selected b McNamara.

Given this, I fully exepcted the England side to play some entertaining rugby - especially when the game was won and France were on damage limitation.

I agree about your points re ME though - recent performances have resulted in his "I was right all along" posts.

The build up against Crusaders would have had ample input from Macca. OK - the day to day stuff might have changed slightly but St Hilaire as you put, does know the protocols we work to. The main problem for me on Sunday was the appeared attitude of more than a few individuals who looked uninterested.

Rather than derail this thread I am going to start a new England France one, because there were some very good & very bad bits.

Just back from a nice long weekend Wales (shame about the Rugby!).

I can't be bothered reading 8 or so pages of what I suspect will be pretty depressing posts by Bulls fans. I know I was pretty fed up leaving Wrexham on Sunday!

Very poor showing indeed. I think we desperately need a stand off, defences are now wise to Sykes and are closing him down with ease. Without Orford at 7 we have little creativity and it all looks a bit panic play to me. I think the most disappointing aspect though is our defence, it looked to have improved massively earlier in the season... just what has happened? Langley will improve this area when he returns but to ship that many points in against a fairly ordinary Crusaders side is very poor.

I hope they have some answers for Sat otherwise it could be a very long afternoon.

Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. Beside the point. When the team plays as generally well as that, and scores as many points as that, and shows some rugby as attractive as some of that (and I am neither saying it was perfect, nor that it makes us world beaters, before some idiot claims I am) then THE COACH MUST BE GIVEN SOME CREDIT. It is ludicrous to suggest that anyone could have done the same, or that any team would have plugged France. Either a coach has a substantial input (in which case give McNamara some credit) or the coach does not have any significant input (in which case you can hardly in the same breath slag him off for what must then presumably be mainly the failings of the Bradford players). Especially when at the time of and preparing for the latest debacle, he wasn't even there. And yes he did pick the England team, so credit for that too. For example many slagged him for picking the young lad at FB. What numbskulls t[ihey[/i now look.

All I am saying is people often seem to want it both ways. Great performance - yeh but anyone could have done it; crap performance - all down to that idiot of a coach.


You may think that, but I couldn't possibly comment. I'll valiantly try to continue to discuss the thread, and topics.


You see, you're doing it now. You are scrambling around to angle it in such a way that the blame for the defeat is largely McNamara's, yet "anyone could have thumped France". Well, in my opinion, that view ("anyone could have thumped France"icon_wink.gif would be pretty much true of the Crusaders game ("pretty much anyone would or should have beaten Crusaders"icon_wink.gif. I view it as an exaggeration, but not a big one. Do you see the point?


Me too. I do not absolve any of the coaching staff from blame, and if player X does not display sufficient motivation and desire on matchday then the responsibility for that ultimately rests with the coaching staff, and indeed they may even often lose their jobs, but that does NOT mean that Player X is free from blame. And in many cases Player X bears the lions share of the blame, since the coaching staff can do what they like, but cannot insert the heart of a lion into Player X.

I suppose to sum up my point, we seem to be back to players not looking as if they are putting it all in. Yes have a go at the coaching staff who are supposed to get everything right, all the time - but IF this is the case, then surely the people people should be having a go at first is the players who seem disinterested? To me. McNamara has indisputably proved that he can coach "this shower" (as some have referred) to very good levels of performance (5th in the SL at halfway, watch the Leeds and Warrington videos), and so if they drop so far below those levels, and against a team like Crusaders, then the first people I would be shooting are the players.

And in terms of preparation and motivation for that particular match, I don't care what anyone says, there is NO doubt that the key work in that respect was clearly done last week by Lee St. Hilaire, and not by McNamara, which may indicate that it isn't even a McNamara versus Players issue, since surely if it was, then when the cat was away, the mice would bust a gut to play.

So I think the issues and reasons must be as complex as the performance was hopeless, and someone needs to get to the bottom of it, but it looked to me then, and looks to me now as if there is some sort of trouble in the camp, and I don't reckon it is to do with McNamara. Indeed if anything the players may have been adversely affected by the news that he is on his way out, since I have never heard anything but big raps for the coach from any past or present players.

I'm not sure how to do the fancy cutting up of your post as you did with mine but here's what I say in reply - hopefully it gets my point across.

I agree that you cannot solely blame the coach - (I think that is what you are getting at). For me, it is clear to see that there are some individuals not pulling their weight (be it playing, or "injured"icon_wink.gif.

In regards to St. Hilaire though I think you are doing Macca a mis-service. Do you honestly believe that Macca had no input into what St Hilaire was told to do during the week in the build up to the Crusaders game? If he had no real input and indication of how we were to play I think Macca should walk away now. Macca was at the game and although we saw St Hilaire giving a team talk, we also saw Macca doing the same. What was said will never be known but I know that after playing sport to a good level the motivation really starts on the day of the game and the discussions in the sheds. This is where you get "pumped" and not on the Monday morning 5 / 6 days before a game.

I've said it in a post on another thread that I feel some players are holding back waiting to see who will be taking over - they may feel that they no longer need to "try" for Macca given he won't be here next season and with the squad as light as it is they know they will play most, if not all weeks.

Macca should take some credit with regards to the French game. But, lets be honest, when was the last time we didn't really beat them with ease regardless of who was in charge?

Overall I feel as though you make some very valid points that I agree alot with - I think you and I just seem to go slightly different directions at a certain points.

Take early retirement & spend the next few years practising I would suggest.

I suppose I could become a house husband! Pretty much the same by all accounts.