The 2 most successful coaches of the summer era? Interesting.

Tony Smith might feel a bit hard done too there - 1 WCC, 2 SL, 1 CC, 1 Northern Ford Premiership, 1 National League Cup

Do you reckon Sunday would have changed his mind, after 4 years in the job?

I reckon a character reference handed down on stone tablets at Mount Sinai wouldn't make him change his mind.

Isn't it strange how the likes of Andy Farrell and Mike Gregory were captains of junior sides and no one ever questioned the people who selected them?

That's not a relevant line of argument.

Captaining a school side does not preclude a person from being a successful "Grade A" captain.

I don't even think it would have made the slightest bit of difference if we'd had the best motivational speaker in the world to the two most important games we lost last season, or i suspect most of the others. We managed to lose some equally important games when we still had faz giving the hairdryer treatment under the posts.

You don't think we would of beat saints away if we had Barrett in the team?

He wasn't exactly a Saints slayer in his time at Wigan was he?

The only team Barrett never totally tore apart in his time at Wigan was Saints so your probably right.

I would have loved to see Barrett and Tomkins form a halfback partnership mind. If we'd have had that last year with Leuluai at 9 we'd have gone even closer.

It's a very relevant line of argument. People were questioning the people that chose him as Captain at junior level, yet it's an often quoted statistic that the likes of Faz and Edwards captained sides at every level including junior, academy, etc. If it was irrelevant why would it ever be mentioned?

I understand that it's not an arbiter of how good they are, but as an indicator of the right pedigree it's not only relevant, but arguably the only quantifiable marker we have.

But that wasn't the point i was making, i said 'motivational speaker' i.e. captain, not having a player with the ability of trent in the squad. Basically in the big games we missed out on, I think it was execution (lost ball and kicking option) that failed us, not motivation (that a captain could influence). I don't think any amount of lambasting would stop us dropping the ball or missing tackles, or not having a kicker who can regularly hit touch at a distance, or regularly turn the defender, or have stopped feka getting knackered so fast for example.

It is completely irrelevant.


There are a number of reasons why people are appointed captain at a more junior level.

Playing ability, family "connections", attitude to training to name but three.

Sure, many who are appointed captain at this level go on to become good captains at a higher level. However, there is no guarantee.

That is why it's irrelevant.

You may as well say "Farrell and Edwards used to eat pasta, therefore everyone who eats pasta will make a good captain".

I was not there (and I won't be at any of the friendlies for various reasons) but why would you ask such a question? It's about as relevant as your "do you watch the academy" questions last season.

[uIt was a friendly.[/u



Dave

And when taken out of their comfort zones at Saints and Bradford, they failed. Their credibility has taken a serious dent given their time at Wigan and their judgement called into question many times on this board when they coached here.

It is not therefore unreasonable to question who they appointed as captain particularly if you consider the man they appointed wasn't doing a good enough job (which in my opinion he has not).

Of the two it was Millward who I blame the most because as I said at the time before we had any idea of how well Lockers would do at the job, it was a stupid thing to do to give the captaincy to a player returning from such a serious injury and to (then) a young player. His success at Saints was no excuse for doing that IMO and it was just one of many flawed bits of judgment he exercised in his short time as our coach.

Moving on to Nobby, he was rightly criticised for his loyalty first approach to team selection and so there was no way he was ever going to change captain. This approach was just wrong IMO and also IMO would inevitably mean Lockers would remain captain as long as Noble was coach. Now he is not we see this change occur.

What I don't get in all this debate though is why Lockesr is considered by some unimpeachable? He is a very good player, not a great one. He has his strengths and weaknesses as player but is not head and shoulders above his contemporaries in the side and doesn't stand out in any way as an obvious choice for captain IMO.

Dave

I wouldn't have!

Regarding th first part of your post; that would be all well and good if the junior captain then fell away. However when subsequent coaches then go to pick him at senior level it becomes highly relevant. Incidentally, at least 2 of the things you state as reasons people are appointed captain at junior level , playing aility and attitude to training (some would say the 3rd too!), are also among the reasons someone is appointed at senior level. Again, do you see the 'relevance'?

As for your pasta analogy, that's utterly ridiculous! We're talking aout the captaincy not what they eat! If you were to say "Edwards and Farrell ate pasta as juniors and so were more likely to also eat pasta as seniors too" then it might have some relevance! Whether someone captained at any level is highly relevant to a discussion on captaincy. What they ate is not. Is this such a difficult concept to grasp or do you simply not understand the meaning of the word "relevant"?

The fact is the likes of Farrell, Edwards, Mike Gregory, Paul Sculthorpe and Sean O'loughlin were identified by different coaches at ALL levels they played at as captain material. It is not irrelevant at all, in fact it's highly relevant, THEY saw something in those players that made THEM think that those players had something about them that made them leaders.

Or would you prefer your theory that the parents watching chose the captain!!

Nah

You simply cannot cite School teachers as being a valid backup to your argument.

I take on board some of the later appointments, frankly it's baffling to me, but I can see the relevance there, but NOT schoolteachers.

If you can honestly say that Lockers is a good captain, then fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion, but I do wonder where you are looking.

The same place that former coaches and players looked? The question should be where are you looking that makes you feel you are more qualified than said past coaches and players?

This is where you (and many others on here) are going wrong.

The idea of a forum is to present your OPINION.

I have at no point stated that I am more qualified than any RL coach, past or present. Where on earth did that come from?

I have stated that, iin my opinion, Lockers is a poor captain. I have given reasons why I think that's the case.


The reaction of some on here (even making allowances for the fact that some posters are children) is laughable. It's as though I (and others who "dare" to post an opinion that is even slightly outside the mainstream), have incited a terrorist attack on the Galleries.

But you never simply post an opinion and leave it at that do you? You post an opinion and then proceed to state what you feel is wrong with other peoples, thus entering a debate. Are you then surprised when people attack your own views? If you want to challenge other peoples opinions and debate, then fully expect to have your own opinion challenged, we all do.

Oh let's be clear, I enjoy debate. But debate has to be valid and relevant for it to be useful.

By all means criticise and disagree with the points that I make, but stick to the facts.


e.g. Where have I ever said that I am more qualified than a RL coach?

The answer, is, of course, nowhere.

Therefore why state it?

You know quite well that meaning in language is implied as well as explicitly stated, and any reasonably intelligent person (which i'm assuming you are) has to consider both the implied and explicit meanings of statements that they make. If you don't mean an implication, then you should say so rather than simply say where did I state that.

Nope. The burden of proof must lie with the person making the statement.

The original poster cannot be expected to second guess every readers personal interpretation of their words.


Bearing that in mind, perhaps you would like to point out exactly where I said I was more qualified than an RL coach?