Players returns 14th november

Bit more (even though it's a gossip page) www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... 6495058658 St Helens and former St George Illawarra coach Nathan Brown was never a serious chance, having knocked back an interview request from Tigers CEO Stephen Humphreys.

Bit more (even though it's a gossip page) www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... 6495058658 St Helens and former St George Illawarra coach Nathan Brown was never a serious chance, having knocked back an interview request from Tigers CEO Stephen Humphreys.

I wouldn't have minded Tim Sheens.

Under achieved at Wests for me. I could coach Australia.
Not a miss as far as Im concerned.

He won stuff with Wests though, which is more than Brown has done.

My nervousness about Brown still exists in that I'm still concerned about how Hudds repeatedly faded away towards the end of the season, how they didn't seem to have the bottle for the big games (and we need our bottle back!), how their defence went to pot over the years he was with them, and how he periodically would yearn for life down under. I suppose the only way for those concerns to be allayed is by going through a season with him in charge. Hopefully he can create something good out of the hotchpotch of players we have.

Either way, I'm glad Rush is no longer in charge. That's a definite bonus.

I have to agree with you on this, however, I don't think Mr Brown has coach Wests

Mi muther ust fer say "It takes one fer no one.

It's amazing how many top (but so far unrecognised) RL coaches post on this board.

On another tangentially related subject, how come so may British ex-RL players have senior coaching roles in RU but we don't seem to be able to bring them through in RL?

I think most of us share those nervous sentiments.

When Hudds were in a dip, they looked poor, but otherwise they not only played good rugby, but always seemed to have a plan (they, along with wigan, really upped the ante in terms of the wrestle a couple of years back). He aslo seemed to bring on young players well.

I'm hoping that the extra amount of pressure/expectation on the palyers and coaching staff at Saints (compared to Hudds) will help iron out the problems his sides have had with inconsistencies.
I would also think that, if he can't make things work at Saints, there's no point in even thinking about a job down under.

I have wondered this too. I think it is partly because Union genrally seems to have a team of coaches, responsible for specific tasks, as opposed to us who have a coach and an assistant. Salford appear to be taking the same route with Long as an attacking coach. It also means that you can identify a specific area of coaching that isnt working. For instance, last season, Slafords attack was generally good, whereas their defense wasnt. So longy can be seen as a success even in a failing team. Whereas, what was KCs input to Saints and what was he repsonsible for? Seems as though an assistant is just a bag carrier.

It would be good if we could have a similar system as I think we miss out on bringing through cohorts of coaches, when there is a team some will sink some will swim and there is a way of finding out who can coach and who can't before they get the top job. In our system the top coach carries the can for everything and the assistant is never deamed to have proved himself worthy of the top job as he does not have any area to be responsible for.

The big issue with a team of coaches though, is money.

On a side note, Mick Potter has landed the Wests' job.

I believe it really caught on in union under Clive Woodward, who had quite a big team if coaches as had more of a managers role than coach. To do it the manager has to have trust in his coaches, and delegate the authority down to them. I don't believe that sort of system exists yet in rl, or in the mindset of rl coaches. maybe someone like rush could set it in place.

Is Nathan bringing anyone in with him or is keeping saints backroom staff from last season