I would rather macnamara, burgess and long or wane over Rowley or any other coach who's name is in the hat due to getting teams to overachieve. Macnamara and wane both have shown their ability to build good consistent squads and an ability to develop youth and would be here for a long term project. Burgess and long would be a risk but the bigger the risk the bigger the payoff.
What I am against is us being a springboard into the NRL, if Holbrook won the gf on his 3rd year and went back to the NRL then we're back to square1 potentially. Its a short term vision that may bring us success but not sustained success, like many felt under Smith get that one gf and a few more would have followed.
I also don't think we're that terrible a prospect the team on paper is not as bad as their performances we have some young players to develop and an academy. Their job really is to get to the bottom of our inability to translate our resources into success and wane probably already knows that and I don't think Steve Mac would take too long to figure it out either.
You only have to look at football and the current trend of managers their. City Liverpool and arsenal have brought in managers and have changed to suit the manager bought into their vision and backed them. We need to think long and hard about our next coach and if we want to continue the merry-go-round every 2/3 years of a new coach and period of transition. Its a critical time for our younger players like thelis wrench Ashton these are important periods in their development and we are at risk of them not fulfilling their potential due to our own doing. If it means we appoint an interim coach for the foreseeable then so be it get the right man not just any man
