Correct, ATEOTD you will always have people who just cant give credit to the incumbent coach at the time, there will always be people who will come out and say that the only reason that coach B is winning is because coach A did all the groundwork, built the team etc, especially when things go wrong. McDermott / Bluey >Smith -> Powell -> Lance -> Murray -> Bell and keep going back until it suits their narrative.

The guy has taken us to multiple finals, keeping the car ticking over despite it losing some major parts for this he takes credit, some of his more banal decisions he takes flak for, this is sport.

Went to a motivational night with Jamie Peacock recently where Kev was one of the speakers. When asked who their best coach was they both said Mac. They said that a coach usually has 2/3 out of 4 things they do really well more than other areas, man management, tactics etc but McDermott is an all rounder that does well in all aspects required to be a good coach.

Arguably 2 of the greatest whove played under a few in their time, both say McDermott, he must be doing something right.

Agree entirely. Most clubs have readily identifiable ex-players as supports. Interestingly the 3 I can think of who don't appear to have are Leeds, Hull & Wigan. I would put all 3 coaches in a similar mould - good at man-management & motivation, but poor at coaching an attacking style with a squad of excellent players.

I agree with this, but IMO the main reason is that all 3 of the coaches of these clubs are ex forwards so coaching attacking play is never going to be their forte.

His interview with Mark Wilson is very good but he does contradict himself wrt players.

Add fatty Cunningham to the list of ex-front rowers who destroyed a clubs attacking prowess.

first time in many years we were feared , with an attacking game plan (mainly for the 2nd half)
players raised above their ability

Macnamara?
Is Radford the exception that proves the rule?

Pffft what do Sinfield and Peacock know anyways, some posters on here have had conversations with McDermott and they know much better than them.

Not IMO. Hull are pretty average in attack, I think.

Just on the man-management stuff, I don't know why anyone would be surprised that BM has issues with some players. So does Wayne Bennett (Gorden Tallis for one publicly doesn't have much time for him). It goes with the territory, particularly when the coach has been in place for a long time.

Most coaches work far more on defence than attack probably because its easier and the professional mentality seems to if we concede less than our opponents we can lose rather than if we score more than our opponents we can't lose - Cas are the exception which reflects the fact they have an ex-back as a coach.

I wouldn't be surprised with any coach having issues with certain players, don't know why you've bought it up to be honest.

Agreed. I would argue Hull's success in attack is in spite of Radford, rather than because of. They have the best attacking talent in SL but it is not a coordinated approach.

Powell has obviously done a shed load of work on defence; the second best in SL now.