I don't think anyone is arguing over who is better in Smith or Lowes and Cullen. I think that's a pretty obvious result.

I think you answer your own contradiction in your first paragraph. Comparing Monaghan and Atkins to Gleeson and Hicks is just scraping the barrell.

Briers has always been the same player, regardless of who is the coach. Always been number one in that squad. It's how the players around him play that changes the results.

I'm going to give you the King and to an extent the Bridge position. King is definately a different player under Smith, but then again let's be realistic why should anything else have been expected. The guy was world class before going to Wire, so why shouldn't he have continued. Perhaps though, the well known "Settling in period" could also have had an effect here?

I said an extent to Bridge, because in the most part before Smith there he was injured, and it was actually Lowes that saw and suggested Bridge as a centre rather than a stand off. Smith put when fit Bridge into centre and got a much better player for it.

You're missing the point. They weren't tjhere in 2009 when they won the CC Final.

Erm, no. J Monaghan played no part in either the 2009 or 2010 finals. Neither did Myler. Atkins played in one of them.

He wasn't even selected for the 2010 final. He went from England's scrum half to a player who was striuggling to get in Warrington's 17.

What about the 2009 squad, inhereted by lowes, from Cullen and inhereted by Smith from Lowes? What about the 2010 squad?

Smith has turned around Warrington. Of course those palyers are playing a part but who is coaching them to levels they haven't acheived before?

We are at complete cross purposes here. Although I am guessing it is done on purpose on your part to use in your argument.

The Challenge cup means absolute diddly squat to me. I would base no reference on the quality of a coach or a team on winning that competition. Even John Kear has won 2 challenge cups .

What you need to look at is the league. 2009 was a non entitiy for Warrington, they finished 10th and oustide the play offs. But for lucky draws in the challenge cup that season would have been long wiped from their memories.

Just to clarify they actually went backwards in 2009 from a respectable 6th position in 2008.

Then the player changes started to happen (along with Smith's input) and they became a force in 2010, and with more changes have gone up a massive gear in 2011.

Your final sentence doesn't make sense. The players are been coached to levels they have been before, that's the point, they went out and signed class players.

I think you meant can't there Tad, but you are wrong there. I fully accept a top coach would make a difference. I just don't accept that any coach with this sqaud of players would have us challenging for the Legue title. And if you are not challenging then what is the point?

I fully accept with you on the Burgess, Clarkson and Cross front. Absolutely agree, they would make a big difference, when comparing with 5h1te like Hauraki. But again I reapeat, as far as beating Warrington last week, they would not have changed that.

Where have I moaned?

It used to do before 1998 when the top spot was the goal. Now it's a qualifying comp, no more no less and every team knows that before a ball is kicked.


Erm, not since 1998.

Yes, it probably would be.

It's still the best indicator of how well a team has performed over the course of the season, irrespective of whether it goes on to win the Grand Final or not.

If you're measuring improvement from one season to the next relative to the rest of the competition, it remains the best way of doing it IMO.

A couple of pages back.



Again we are at cross purposes.

The league gives a reflection of the consistency and quality of a team. Winning the GF makes you champions. I am in agreement with the GF concept, let's clear that up, but consistency of performance throughout the season does not mean you can't have both.



. I have more respect for you than that. You don't believe that at all, so I'll ignore it for future.

TS's first game in charge of Warrington in 2009 was in Round 4 against Leeds at Headingley.

So he had 24 SL games to turn it around there.

Warrington finished 10th.

HTH

I don't think anyone is arguing with this team and a better coach we would be winning the title, but that we would be closer to challenging and would be more competitive in these games

I don't think TS would make a difference at Leeds right now. I doubt he'd even be welcomed back by the senior players at Leeds anyhow.

TS is very much like his elder brother. They are like a breath of fresh air when they join a club and they invariably turn things around fairly sharpish with improvements in enthusiasm, performances, tactics and results.

However, both possess limited shelf lives at any one club due in the main to their peremptory personalities, which, once the initial freshness and general bonhomie has worn off, enthusiasm, results and performances by the team tail off and the coach moves on to another coaching gig elsewhere.

TS's departure from Leeds in 2007 was entirely appropriate.

IMO it doesn't.

Is the end goal of every team to be the most consistent or the champions?

Every team has known, since 1998, the route to being champions, is through the playoffs. They aim to qualify as high as they can in the league but, more importantly, as has been shown many times, they aim to finish wit ha wet sail going into the playoffs.

TS won league titles in 2004 and 2007 at Leeds so your theory of a limited shelf life and a tail off is not suipported by facts.