Re: What scenario keeps McDermott in his job? : Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:15 am  

Not always true. Sometimes risks are taken that simply wouldn't in other games with other players - particular WRT big name players in big games. Most of the time we don't really hear about it, but sometimes we do and it can backfire spectacularly (Senior in the CC final springs to mid).

Re: What scenario keeps McDermott in his job? : Tue Dec 13, 2016 7:14 am  

The moral high ground of not picking players or players putting their hand up to play if they need a jab sounds all well and good AND easy when it's not your job and you aren't judge don't based on results so anybody saying they've wouldn't do it I take with a pinch of salt. Very easy to forget that 3rd game in was the WCC and if he wanted to play him in that big game they might've felt he'd be better having some SL action before.

Re: What scenario keeps McDermott in his job? : Tue Dec 13, 2016 9:57 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

My post clearly highlights how ridiculous it was to try and add more weight to the damning decision to play Sutcliffe by thinking him getting slated on here is in any way relevant.

Were you in involved in all the medical discussions between the coaching and medical staff with regards to Sutcliffe to be able to tell us that it's solely on McDermott? You clearly have a soft spot for Sutcliffe and never have liked it when others have written off, most likely you have some connection to him that clouds your views in issues regarding him.

Players have to play hurt at times, that's just how the sport goes. We were missing guys that could've played instead so if somebody had to go out jabbed up or strapped up that's just the nature of the game, let's not pretend no other coach is sending out guys with jabs etc that could be better off not playing. Happens all over the league but the way some whine about it you'd think McDermott was the only one who did it. Hypocrisy about the whole situation is that when the likes of Hall, Briscoe, McGuire etc. weren't getting rushed back in near the end end part of the regular season those players got slated for not trying their hardest to get back out there as quickly as possible and people were questioning their desire to get back and help the team. Just another perfect example of how some of the fan base can always find fault and complain either way the club does something, even when it contradicts the early argument they had. "We shouldn't rush players back"....."why aren't the players rushing back to play & help out when we're struggling"

To players this is a job - nothing more, fans expecting greater desire because they play for your club is clouded thinking.

If you weren't feeling on top of your game would you go work - of course you wouldn't - especially if what ever was stopping you going to work could get worse and cause a longer lay off.

All players in all sports have pulls and strains that they play with - playing with an injury that impairs your ability to contribute fully to the team is unfair on your team mates and supporters

Re: What scenario keeps McDermott in his job? : Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:19 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

To players this is a job - nothing more

To the majority, yes. The likes of McGuire, JJB, Hall etc.. lads who have supported and grown up through the system i would say that it is a bit more than a job. JJB for example, would run through a brick wall for the Leeds cause. That is one big benefit of bringing local talent through your system.

Re: What scenario keeps McDermott in his job? : Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:40 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

To players this is a job - nothing more

Like Biff said, for some that is true but to paint all players with that brush is clearly wrong and we've had enough examples in our squad in recent times who prove that.

Re: What scenario keeps McDermott in his job? : Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:52 am  

BrisbaneRhino wrote:

Not always true. Sometimes risks are taken that simply wouldn't in other games with other players - particular WRT big name players in big games. Most of the time we don't really hear about it, but sometimes we do and it can backfire spectacularly (Senior in the CC final springs to mid).

The major consequence of playing Senior was that it made the injury worse and we lost him for the rest of the season. We should still have won that game, bt Hull decided to play really well (how dare they!) and Calderwood made that last minute fumble. Had he dropped on, what was a very poor kick, it was game over. But he fumbled. Senior had nothing to do with that or with Bai's c**k up earlier in the match.

Re: What scenario keeps McDermott in his job? : Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:28 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

The moral high ground of not picking players or players putting their hand up to play if they need a jab sounds all well and good AND easy when it's not your job and you aren't judge don't based on results so anybody saying they've wouldn't do it I take with a pinch of salt. Very easy to forget that 3rd game in was the WCC and if he wanted to play him in that big game they might've felt he'd be better having some SL action before.

Big difference between playing hurt players, and playing players who are at risk of permanently damaging their bodies. Sutcliffe clearly was medically fit to play so the question is more on the lines of should the coach protect a younger player more and not throw him in before he is ready.

However there have been far too many examples of Mac playing players when there is a risk, McGuire this season being the most recent example. He should protect his players more.

Re: What scenario keeps McDermott in his job? : Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:28 pm  

DHM - my point was the injury itself. Senior was crocked for the rest of the year. Had it been Willie Poching for example, the risk wouldn't have been taken at all.

Re: What scenario keeps McDermott in his job? : Tue Dec 13, 2016 11:43 pm  

Niggly injuries are the concern,sprains and pulls go away.Somewhere along the lines you have to decide,can we nurse the player to close season (operation to fix),or write his season off now...

You decide...