ThePrinter wrote:
Agree to disagree on views on Cuthbertson and Parcell. Again both were hampered by how many front towers we had missing. You say Parcell was found out but any hooker would’ve struggled with the lack of forwards we had in plenty of games and did Dwyer get ahead of him? Parcel was first choice up to the CCSF and missed the next three because of injury, sub the next 2 but back to starting the last 2.
Sinfield definitely did complain about having too much of his salary cap in the stands which made him a hypocrite based on him originally saying he wouldn’t use injuries as an excuse.
I agree that cultural behaviour issues can have a big impact on the field.....that why when the performances and efforts in the games Sinfield was in charge are telling because they were way way worst when factoring in the opposition. We were fortunate we weren’t playing top 8 teams regularly under his brief reign otherwise it would’ve been 40-50 point defeats regularly. Despite him claiming the culture started to improve under him the performances say they got worst so quite poor form for him to keep banging that drum in his interviews. What was he trying to achieve by constantly bringing this up BTW? Your not just critising the previous coach but the whole squad and members of coaching staff who remained by criticising the culture. He’s a guy who said in As Good As It Gets things that happen in the dressing rooms should be kept in-house yet he couldn’t stop going on about the poor culture and boasting of how he had improved it even though the players didn’t for a second look like they were playing for him.
So what you are saying is Parcell can only play behind a dominant pack - well most hookers can play behind a dominant pack its what they do when they don't have things all their own way - in that Parcell failed miserably. Cuthbertson is a busted flush who thinks he is a half back and doesn't want the hard stuff that comes with being a prop - time he was gone.
If culture goes west its takes months/years to turn that around - Sinfield may have seen an improvement in some areas but for that to permeate on to field will be some way off. If the players have become soft on the field due to the previous regime that cannot be changed without a significant change in personnel both on and off the field.
I never heard him once mention injuries - I heard a lot about desire and commitment and his honesty was refreshing and perhaps that was his way of highlighting the issues to the players, coaches and directors. Sometimes you cannot defend the indefensible. Perhaps the players needed to look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves the question if they are in the right place - their fitness was an embarrassment - that is a tangible output of poor culture and something that cannot be put right in 2/3 months. That situation should be put fairly and squarely at the door of the previous coach.
It is obvious you have little time for Sinfield and that is clouding your thoughts about his input and what he inherited from McDermott. If the players don't want to play for the coach/manager the best thing is for them to find a coach they do want to play for. One thing for certain their fitness levels will be significantly higher under Furner and their attitude will be a lot better or they simply will not play.
Give over, you don't give a shiny one about Salford as you've openly highlighted in previous posts. We'll be just fine princess so hope you don't lose too much sleep worrying. Let's revisit this in the new year and you can give me your in-depth knowledgeable assessment of how Salford will do next year. I'm looking forward to watching Mr Hastings run rings around the once great Rhino's already. 
