: Mon May 18, 2009 6:26 am  

Block5Bull wrote:

I honestly can't recall seeing a back 3 (Platt played most of the game at wing) run sideways so much. I don't think it would have made much difference who was where.

That said, I think that Burgess, Lynch and to a lesser extent Sykes (if for his massive tackles alone) are the only ones who deserve credit today. Oh, and Worrincy who looked head and shoulders above the likes of Langley and Cook in terms of effort, enthusiasm, strong running and the lines that he kept trying to produce off a flat, slow attack.

why did we wait so long to bring worrincy on? every time he touched ball he was dangerous yet we waited till latter stages of game to introduce him. We've got to revert to sykes/jeffries pairing next week assuming nero is fit. deacon brought absolutely nothing to the game except short penalty kicks and poor passes. we look much better with jeffries at halfback and sykes doing all the kicking.

: Mon May 18, 2009 7:37 am  

At the start of the season Worrincy didnt look much more than a squad player, it wasnt really surprising that he didnt get much game time. Over the last few weeks though he's looked like our most dangerous attacking option, along with Menzies. I dont understand why he isnt being utilised more.

Hopefully the conditioning staff are going through the dietary supplements to discover the rogue batch of valium that somehow got mixed up with the multivitamins.

: Mon May 18, 2009 9:26 am  

Block5Bull wrote:

Outside the playoffs by several points. What do you think it means?

It is a phrase that is used a lot but I just wonder where does it get us. I mean, take 2003. Clearly no one would say that things 'weren't good enough' that year in retrospect (plenty said so at various points through the year). But despite it being 'good enough', would you expect the coaching and playing staff to work any less hard. And so flip it around, what does 'not good enough' mean? Not much on its own. It needs to be coupled with '...and what needs to be done is... <insert>'. What is it that should be done?

: Mon May 18, 2009 10:34 am  

af wrote:

It is a phrase that is used a lot but I just wonder where does it get us. I mean, take 2003. Clearly no one would say that things 'weren't good enough' that year in retrospect (plenty said so at various points through the year). But despite it being 'good enough', would you expect the coaching and playing staff to work any less hard. And so flip it around, what does 'not good enough' mean? Not much on its own. It needs to be coupled with '...and what needs to be done is... <insert>'. What is it that should be done?

Quite simply, the board (and a fair few on here) seem to believe that we have the right man for the job and that we should trust him. He has also recruited the players that he believes are the right men for the job and, as such by association, the board should feel happy with also. They have trusted their man to recruit the players he wants to make us a competitive side.

But, we sit 11th in the table. Two great wins have papered over the cracks that are quite obvious to many.

IF the coach thinks we have the squad to compete in SL and the board ARE sure that the coach is the man to take us forward, then 11th in the league, dwindling crowds and an embarrassing defeat against the leagues' whipping boys is not good enough I would suggest?

: Mon May 18, 2009 10:40 am  

af wrote:

... What is it that should be done?

Well, we have a situation where a bit like a rubber ball, we reach reasonable heights like beating Rhinos, and away at Saints, but now all too predictably crash back all the way to the floor, to a performance where we have woeful halfback play (which I mention first because if both your halfbacks are absent then you are in a position to struggle from the off), woeful kicking game, lack of respect for the ball/ coughing it up / knocking on / dropping it etc., at times an extremely lethargic and disinterested, "leave-it-to-you" defence and similar flat, uninspired attack, culminating in annoyingly predictable match-affecting balls-ups in the last minutes of each half.

Or to put it shorter - déjà vu. And the fact that we seem to reserve the worst of it for our home games is key, because it is one thing the faithful going home with that "we lost to a better team, oh well" feeling, but all too many times we go home really fscked off not so much with the result, but with the déjà vu débâcle (love this French stuff!) of the way the players have, in the main, performed.

Now here's the thing. They ain't coached to play like that. Mac says so. The players say so. They can't understand why sometimes we revert to this turgid, error-strewn, unenthusiastic mode (when we have amply demonstrated that our team which "on paper" is definitely good enough, can, when it wants, reach the sort of standard which "on paper" suggests). Nobody knows the answer. Nobody understands it. Mac says so. The players say so.

So, the obvious answer is to watch a tape of the game, analyse each player, and drop all - every one - who did not perform anywhere near the standards he should. Also drop all - every one - who did not follow the game plan which the coach and players trained to do.

This I suspect might not leave many available for the next game, and so what we should do is, in fact, impossible - unless you do a Saints and play the reserves / academy next time out. I'm never one for throwing youngsters to the lions, but what else is there?

Whether you love him or hate him, I've said before that it seems clear to me that McNamara has for some time now been Dead Man Walking, he's even had the dreaded vote of confidence, but I imagine got a stay of execution due to the last couple, especially the Saints game. The thing is, and again I'm repeating myself, in any sports club, what can you do? You can't sack the team, and you can't buy, buy, buy half another team.

The chief responsibility, in this case, rests with the players, who have admitted as much. More than once. And there's little, in reality, that we can do about that. I reckon we will now spin out the rest of the season with what we've got, unless unexpectedly some better alternative appears on the horizon.

I really don't think there's much we can "do". All the players and the coaching staff share the responsibility (statement of obvious) but to me, if the halfback situation isn't sorted out we'll be same old, same old all season, and if we don't sort it out (and on a more permanent basis) by season ticket time then I fancy sales will take a huge dive as IMHO that is where the problems start. Not finish, by any means, but that's my personal starting point.

: Mon May 18, 2009 10:46 am  

mystic eddie wrote:

Quite simply, the board (and a fair few on here) seem to believe that we have the right man for the job and that we should trust him. He has also recruited the players that he believes are the right men for the job and, as such by association, the board should feel happy with also. They have trusted their man to recruit the players he wants to make us a competitive side.

But, we sit 11th in the table. Two great wins have papered over the cracks that are quite obvious to many.

IF the coach thinks we have the squad to compete in SL and the board ARE sure that the coach is the man to take us forward, then 11th in the league, dwindling crowds and an embarrassing defeat against the leagues' whipping boys is not good enough I would suggest?

But TBF you're just dying for McNamara to get the chop, and have a child-like belief that this one thing will instantly remove all mistakes, dropped balls, needless penalties, will transform the kicking game, will turn the defence into an impenetrable steel wall and will turn our attack into a cross between Buzz Lightyear and the Harlem Globetrotters.

You're a single issue voter.

: Mon May 18, 2009 10:58 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

(..good sensible stuff..)

I really don't think there's much we can "do". All the players and the coaching staff share the responsibility (statement of obvious) but to me, if the halfback situation isn't sorted out we'll be same old, same old all season, and if we don't sort it out (and on a more permanent basis) by season ticket time then I fancy sales will take a huge dive as IMHO that is where the problems start. Not finish, by any means, but that's my personal starting point.

I couldn't agree more, I mentioned on another thread, if this is not addressed first and quickly then the rest of the recruitment/resigning/junior development wont matter at all.

: Mon May 18, 2009 11:02 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

But TBF you're just dying for McNamara to get the chop, and have a child-like belief that this one thing will instantly remove all mistakes, dropped balls, needless penalties, will transform the kicking game, will turn the defence into an impenetrable steel wall and will turn our attack into a cross between Buzz Lightyear and the Harlem Globetrotters.

Except I have never said that, ever. Stop making things up again!

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

You're a single issue voter.

That is because I am right.

: Mon May 18, 2009 11:03 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

You can't sack the team, and you can't buy, buy, buy half another team.

That's right, so the next step has to be getting the existing crop of players (including a few who have a bit of talent) to improve.

I draw your attention to Tony Smith at Warrington. Not only has form turned around, but the signs are there that he is beginning to overcome Warrington's biggest weakness over the last 2-3 seasons - their goal-line defence. If the right man is available Bradford need to be making a similar appointment IMO, maybe demoting McNamara to no.2 or 'promoting' him upstairs a la Powell at Leeds.

It seems to me that since McNamara took over at Bradford results and performances have consistently been in decline. Then there are the embarrassing results - losing to Wigan in the play-offs after leading by 30 points, the Catalans CC game, the Cas game this season, and now the first team to lose to Celtic. It seems to me that there is a major attitude problem at the club preventing the team playing (never mind playing well) for 80 minutes and it will need a change in coaching staff to remedy this.

McNamara seems to have admitted that he doesn't know what the problem is, therefore it is unlikely that he knows how to fix it.

Interesting that the player getting the most stick is a survivor from the glory days (Deacon) - not one that your current coach brought in.

: Mon May 18, 2009 11:11 am  

Trimalchio wrote:

That's right, so the next step has to be getting the existing crop of players (including a few who have a bit of talent) to improve.

I draw your attention to Tony Smith at Warrington. Not only has form turned around, but the signs are there that he is beginning to overcome Warrington's biggest weakness over the last 2-3 seasons - their goal-line defence. If the right man is available Bradford need to be making a similar appointment IMO, maybe demoting McNamara to no.2 or 'promoting' him upstairs a la Powell at Leeds.

It seems to me that since McNamara took over at Bradford results and performances have consistently been in decline. Then there are the embarrassing results - losing to Wigan in the play-offs after leading by 30 points, the Catalans CC game, the Cas game this season, and now the first team to lose to Celtic. It seems to me that there is a major attitude problem at the club preventing the team playing (never mind playing well) for 80 minutes and it will need a change in coaching staff to remedy this.

McNamara seems to have admitted that he doesn't know what the problem is, therefore it is unlikely that he knows how to fix it.

Interesting that the player getting the most stick is a survivor from the glory days (Deacon) - not one that your current coach brought in.

That's the point I've been making now for the last season and a half.