Maybe that had something to do with McBannanas tactics/coaching abilities ( or lack of ) !!!!

I think the fact that Bradford lost Lowes, McDermott, Peacock, Vangana, Fielden, Noble, Forshaw, L. Pryce, Vainikolo, Hape, Radford, R. Paul, Anderson, and Harris. Is more to do with Bradfords demise.
Now I don't watch Bradford live but I know a lot of people who do and they rate Deacon he might not be the youngest now, but he has SL experience and he is a Wigan lad. He could be a old head that our young team needs.

That's a different point to the one I was making. I don't blame Deacon at all for Bradford's demise, but I do find the fact he is feted as some kind of on-field organisational guru fairly strange, when much of our play is so obviously disjointed and lacks some on field leadership.

Of course the fact that our coaching staff is collectively out of it's depth and the quality of our backline is poor contributes to that as well, but as the supposed on field organiser and leader Deacon falls way short.

And yet within any good team he's been able to do this, all the way to International level. I think the reasons for his inefectuality lie elsewhere, Asim. You could liken his ineffectiveness to the difference in the 1st and 2nd halves in the last game against the aussies. Everyone looked good in the second half when we played with fluency yet exactly the same players looked poor in a team that lacked any real fluency or gameplan. Who, in your opinion, was responsible? The scrum half or the team/coaches as a whole?

When?

Do you really think Deacon was responsible for that at Bradford in the "glory years"? As someone who watched them week in week out it was clear James Lowes fulfilled that role, and that became even clearer in 2004 when he left and wasn't replaced. Only when Iestyn Harris was brought in did the team climb back up the table from hovering around 5th to 2nd and making the grand final.


Everyone has collective responsibility in a team environment, it is up to the coach to ensure he puts out a team that has the requisite number of leaders/organisers and that they are briefed to do that, if they fail to do so then the coach has to address that problem in whatever way he feels best.

Part of the problem with McNamara's Bradford sides is that he has placed faith and responsibility in Deacon to do it, and he has not proven to be incapable of doing it. Luckily for us it seems that McNamara might have finally realised this to be the case.

I hope you get him.

He is still a good goal kicker but his place kicking is dreadful, he is past his best and he is slower than a week in the jail.

As much as a legend Paul Deacon is at Bradford he should have left a couple of years ago IMO.

I have spoke to 2 players today and both confirmed that its definitley happening. Just waiting for Bradford to secure their replacement in Orford.

So, Deacon to Wigan is done and dusted? Does it not depend on Orford to Bradford?

He has signed, it is true, CPWigan says so

I got told both deals are done, just waiting for visa details for orford.

Cheers mate.

Just need to finalise the Graham deal and the job's a goodun.



Roll on 2010.

I asked about that too and they said it was never on the cards and Graham wouldn't sign for wigan anyway.

I'm not going to argue with you as you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I know what I saw though (and I saw plenty of Bradford during that period) and Deacon's kicking game was always exemplary. If you want to discount his role in Bradford's success during that time I'd be interested to hear your take on why successive coaches, including your most successful ever, thought he was up to the task? The reason he hasn't been able to do it under McNamara is simple. His best days are long gone.

Seen this in Sydney Morning Herald:- www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/where_was_i/ looks like Manly are wondering what Orford is going to do.

Seen this in Sydney Morning Herald:- www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/where_was_i/ looks like Manly are wondering what Orford is going to do.

Sorry - now you all know I'm apPrat:- www.leaguehq.com.au/news/lhqnews ... 56534.html

Sorry - now you all know I'm apPrat:- www.leaguehq.com.au/news/lhqnews ... 56534.html

If Orford signs Deacon goes, if not he stays, simple as.


Source : Nick Scruton

If we do sign Deac's the one thing we can all agree on is that any deal will primarily be in Wigan's favour. IL is no mug and it will be a deal that fits in well with the SC structure at the club.

I’m quite excited about the signing really as it offers us a whole other set of options. One of our hookers or Hb’s will get injured next season and having a player like Deacs with all his SL experience will be a god send when it happens.

On the other hand reading on the Bradford board you’ve really gotta laugh. One poster is saying that signing Orford will make them challengers next season. I personally can’t see how one player will make that much of a difference to an average side and he’s also not the player he once was.

Bradford imo seem to have gone down the road we were on a few years back with mass changes and trying to buy their way out of trouble. I mean in this pre season alone they’ve lost Newton, Morrision, Burgess, Solomona, Tadulala and potentially Deacon and even tho they’ve signed some good/average players it’s a massive hit and a turn around to organise.

Once again you are making a different point to the one I have been making, of course he played his part, primarily with his goalkicking and a long kicking game, which has gone rapidly downhill for the last few years, but the organisation and leadership skills he is being credited for were always provided by James Lowes, when he retired and Deacon had to take on that role we were found wanting and brought in Iestyn Harris - who was much more effective at that part of the game.

When a mainstay like Lowes leaves it often takes a while for the void to be filled. It's not just a case of one player who is already in the side with a pre-defined role taking over that responsibility. I've never seen that happen at any club. I remember plenty games, where both Harris was and wasn't playing, where Deacon was instrumental in the gameplan. Not least a couple games against us at the JJB. However, I undestand the point you're trying to make and I accept that it's a valid viewpoint. I don't think Deacon is some kind of organisational guru but, at the same time, he was very adept at putting a gameplan into operation particularly, as you say, with his long kicking game. As many posters have already pointed out, this is the current perceived weakness with both our current halves, so the point that is being made regarding his possible or potential value to the current Wigan squad is also valid.

I don't mind if we sign Deacon as long as the decision is justified. I want to know that he will bring experience and is the best man for the job of bringing on our young half-backs, otherwise we are just getting some old player to cover which is not what we need really.

Last week I was at Huddersfield to watch England and NZ and sat next to a Bradford fan, a sensible one, who said Deacon gone, been a good player, perhaps but now struggling.

I find it hard to contemplate we are even thinking of this, if in doubt don't buy anyone, this is a bit like the Withers deal etc. a couple of years ago.

My view is only replace or add to people who are better than what we have and this is not the case here, maybe 5 years ago not now.

After watching us yesterday it shows where many of us know we are in standard and fitness, way lacking but this is another issue. Sometimes I despair of our attitude where so many people on here are prepared to accept mediocrity, perhaps that is all they have ever seen, or perhaps they think those idiots on Sky actually know what they are talking about. They have a large responsibility to where we are today.

If Deacon signs he will still most likely be one of our top 25 earning players even if he fits in with a salary cap structure that says "player approaching retirement = low wage".

The £1.6m cap is divided between the top 25 earning players so when people say or assume a player will be a good signing if he is on a low wage they forget he will still limit how [umany[/u signings we can make as he will take up one of those 25 slots.

If he wasn't one of out top 25 earners then his wage would have to come out of the extra £50K pot of money set aside for young players on low wages who get a game - so it would eat into that.

Now given the average wage of a top 25 player is £64,000 and we spend to the full cap (as stated by IL recently) I reckon you want as many of these top 25 players not to be stop gap signings as possible. That is either established senior pros at the top of their game or approaching it or young players like Tomkins on their way up.

It seems a bit if a waste to use one of these 25 slots to bring a player in on a low (but still top 25 wage) who is neither.

Yes I can see the need for cover at half back but I reckon he will take up one of those 25 slots and thus possibly prevent us from signing another player regardless of how much he is paid.


Dave

According to Australian Daily Telegraph Orford signed for Bradford on 500,000 Aus Dollars a year for 3 years, which depending upon whichever you view at the moment is between 1.72 to 1.79 to £, work it out.

Orford is a very good player but 500k for 3 years is not progress in my view, Bradford will have a lot of old Aussies now, basically an exchange of Burgess for Orford. As I said before I don't want an oldish Bradford reject in Deacon, let us be progressive not like this.

Deacs has been out with shaun wane having a drink for a few weeks now. I asked Paul last night ( I went to school with him) outside the john bull 'When are you coming to Wigan paul?' To which he replied 'I'm already here?'. That told me!