: Thu May 28, 2009 8:25 pm  

dixie wrote:

P.s. I know we could drop to 14th

: Thu May 28, 2009 9:01 pm  

af wrote:

Perhaps the biggest of several parts of the puzzle you are missing is the issue of "Will sacking McNamara make things better?" You treat this as a no-brainer, when the fact is that it would cause great disruption and the club would have to be very fortunate to recruit a coach of sufficient ability to counteract that. Just for example, Brian Mac's record at Quins suggests that good as he is, in the unlikely event of him taking the job, he would not meet this standard.

But like wise you treat it as a no brainer that we will get better under McNamara. Even though the form of the last 12 months suggests this isn't going to happen. So this leaves us then in the stupid situation then even though he's failing we can't replace him because his replacement might do no better it's a strange logic.

: Thu May 28, 2009 9:06 pm  

Wigan Bull wrote:

Good question.

As you might of guessed, I think he can.
Although we have declined over that last few years, I think that was inevitable and would have happened under anyone.

So you thought we would be in this mess at the end of the 2007 season when we finished 3rd. It's just seems to be a convenient excuse now things have gone wrong.

: Thu May 28, 2009 9:37 pm  

tigertot wrote:

Where is the evidence that Brian Mc would not meet this standard? He has turned a mediocre team, whose survival I was concerned about, into a consistent , well-coached, top 5 team. Steve Mc has turned a top 5 team into a bottom 2 team.

Evidence of my own eyes over the last couple of years. They seem to be doing OK this year though they have still had some pretty shocking results in and amongst there. If he coaches them to a play-off berth for the first time then that would be a great accomplishment but they've been in the spots before only to fall away. I suspect he could do a similar job at Bradford given the time and presuming he wanted to come here and effectively start from scratch. Which gets onto RER's point. I am not presuming SM will get it right. I just think it's a likelier scenario than we chuck him out for AN Other, who improves first team results signficantly while also maintaining the youth project which as I understand it is very reliant on SM's personal relationship with the prospects we do have.

The reason why I want SM to stay is the same reason I think BM won't ( and probably shouldn't) come. They are both a few years into what I see as ten year jobs, minimum, building a club from the bottom down. Now I sympathise with Bullseye's squeaky bum on this (though not his 'three periods of success' - Champions 1903-04, and don't you forget it ), but if we are going to be a top club again then I think this has to be the approach. I think that our savvy in the market in the first years of Super League is now replicated by a lot of clubs - there's no way we'd be the only ones in for Lowes, TV, Les even these days. So we'd better get growing our own.

: Thu May 28, 2009 9:41 pm  

redeverready wrote:

So you thought we would be in this mess at the end of the 2007 season when we finished 3rd. It's just seems to be a convenient excuse now things have gone wrong.

If I'm completely honest, no, probably not.
Hopfully we've hit the bottom and are now going to rise again.

The NRL has shown us you can finish bottom and go on to win the comp in a short turnaround

I don't know what the problem if on the field this season.
We could have easily won more games than we had. Even 5 of those (e.g. Wakefield, Cas, Hudds, Celtic and Salford), would have seen us on 19 points, in 4th, with a game in hand and the season suddenly has a different outlook.

I also don't know whether there's an issue behind closed doors. I certainly haven't any sort of whisper whatsoever to suggest he's lost the dressing room/

I still say we'll make the 8

: Thu May 28, 2009 9:41 pm  

af wrote:

Evidence of my own eyes over the last couple of years. They seem to be doing OK this year though they have still had some pretty shocking results in and amongst there. If he coaches them to a play-off berth for the first time then that would be a great accomplishment but they've been in the spots before only to fall away. I suspect he could do a similar job at Bradford given the time and presuming he wanted to come here and effectively start from scratch. Which gets onto RER's point. I am not presuming SM will get it right. I just think it's a likelier scenario than we chuck him out for AN Other, who improves first team results signficantly while also maintaining the youth project which as I understand it is very reliant on SM's personal relationship with the prospects we do have.

The reason why I want SM to stay is the same reason I think BM won't ( and probably shouldn't) come. They are both a few years into what I see as ten year jobs, minimum, building a club from the bottom down. Now I sympathise with Bullseye's squeaky bum on this (though not his 'three periods of success' - Champions 1903-04, and don't you forget it ), but if we are going to be a top club again then I think this has to be the approach. I think that our savvy in the market in the first years of Super League is now replicated by a lot of clubs - there's no way we'd be the only ones in for Lowes, TV, Les even these days. So we'd better get growing our own.

I find it hard to understand how you can compere Bradford and Harlequins.

: Thu May 28, 2009 9:46 pm  

af wrote:

The reason why I want SM to stay is the same reason I think BM won't ( and probably shouldn't) come. They are both a few years into what I see as ten year jobs, minimum, building a club from the bottom down. Now I sympathise with Bullseye's squeaky bum on this (though not his 'three periods of success' - Champions 1903-04, and don't you forget it ), but if we are going to be a top club again then I think this has to be the approach. I think that our savvy in the market in the first years of Super League is now replicated by a lot of clubs - there's no way we'd be the only ones in for Lowes, TV, Les even these days. So we'd better get growing our own.

Echo'd af.

I also understand Steve's relationship with the Juniors is and has been a key factor in them choosing the Bulls.

I only hope it's a little less than 10 years in the making.
Could the club survive that?

: Thu May 28, 2009 9:48 pm  

redeverready wrote:

I find it hard to understand how you can compere Bradford and Harlequins.

If we're going to talk about B Mc's record then we have to. And I realise each has different issues and you might typically expect higher league finishes from Bradford. But then until this year, SM has provided that and yet may this season again. I doubt you would get long odds on us overtaking Quins by the end of the year, and as WB has pointed out, the sheer volume of one-score-or-less defeats is what separates us from a handy top four spot and a place in the quarter-final draw.

I'm not slagging off BM. But if he and his results were magically transported to Odsal retrospectively, there's plenty on here that would be.

: Thu May 28, 2009 9:56 pm  

Wigan Bull wrote:

The NRL has shown us you can finish bottom and go on to win the comp in a short turnaround

But that's the NRL not super league. A Super league which has had only four different winners in thirteen years hardly comparable to the NRL.

Wigan Bull wrote:

I don't know what the problem if on the field this season.

But it's not just this season is it. A record of eleven wins from twenty-nine games shows it's more than just this season.

Wigan Bull wrote:

We could have easily won more games than we had. Even 5 of those (e.g. Wakefield, Cas, Hudds, Celtic and Salford), would have seen us on 19 points, in 4th, with a game in hand and the season suddenly has a different outlook.

But likewise we could have easily lost at Saints, Catalans and to Wakey at MM.

Wigan Bull wrote:

I still say we'll make the 8

I think it depends on the results from the next four games.

: Thu May 28, 2009 10:09 pm  

redeverready wrote:

But that's the NRL not super league. A Super league which has had only four different winners in thirteen years hardly comparable to the NRL.

We are heading to a more even comp though, no?
Although I accept it has probably levelled down, rather than out.
Hull KR (so far) are testiment to that. It won't be long before someone else lifts the SL crown.
I still think the point is a valid one, different comp or not.

redeverready wrote:

But it's not just this season is it. A record of eleven wins from twenty-nine games shows it's more than just this season.

I can't really argue with that stat.
Out of interest, how many of those loses were <12points?

redeverready wrote:

But likewise we could have easily lost at Saints, Catalans and to Wakey at MM.

And Leeds, Saints, Hull KR could have lost at x, y,z. We could go round and round with this one.
Again, I still say it's a valid argument to say those 5 wins would have put this season in a different light.

redeverready wrote:

I think it depends on the results from the next four games.

Agreed, we certainly need to start putting some form together.