They were below us before changing coach, now they are above us. Simples.

But you were, you said I was making excuses, which is just wrong.

I don't do much personal insult except where merited and none was intended but if you want to perceive invented "veiled" insults there's not much I can do about that.

As for "self-righteousness" - who was it who just said "largely because I'm not very interested in what you think",that what I thought was a detailed thoughtful response was just "full of tortured logic, veiled personal insult, and willful misinterpretation"? It's not. It's what I think. And it's very self-righteous of you to believe you can diss the whole argument by an ad hominem response.

Are you just one of those people who can't abide someone having a different viewpoint? Or is it that you don't want to face the possibility that I have a point?

I think even you would have to agree that Warrington's form has improved no end under their new coach. With the same players. So the new coach has improved the team. How els can it be explained?

Yes they are still not world beaters and are not challenging for top spot, but even if we won all our remaining fixtures, neither would we be.

The 1982 Aussies couldn't score if you had the ball, could they

Just to clarify things, I also brought up the wire example, in another thread, in responce to a point about if a new coach could change the fortunes of the same bunch of underperforming players. I feel the Wire example is a valid one;

Warrington for the first month of the season played 4 lost 4. Looked shambolic at times but decent in spells, and were putting in performances that you would not have expected looking at thier playing roster pre season. Just like us. They then changed coach to Tony Smith and since that point they have a 68% win ratio (pld 19 won 13, inc CC) which is almost identical to Huddersfields win ratio in third place (69% inc CC) Our current win ratio is 32% BTW. So although thier league placing is not too much distant to ours the form is vastly superior and is that of a top 4 side not a bottom four side.

So there is a very good argument IMHO that if Tony Smith had been in charge from day one and repeated the ratio all season Wire [icould [/ibe 3rd/4th as well as in the cup semi. That is a highly significant turnaround of performance from the same squad (one player exchage Gleeson for Mathers excepted) achieved on the face of it purely and simply by changing coach....nothing else changed as far as I am aware but I'd be happy to hear other reasons for the turnaround.

Im not saying we could have/should have had the same change or that the results would have followed similar patterns, but merely pointing out that you cannot say a change a coach [iwould not [/ihave any effect, as there is clear evidnece from within this season from wire that change [ican [/i and has had a positive impact. I'd also suggest that if Smith guides the club to the Cup Final that would pay back any cost involved in the coaching changes, and would wire fans agree the change in coach prompted the turnaround in performance? I dont know, but I'd guess yes.

Not saying its the answer for every club, or us, but it can clearly work IMO and should never be ruled out just on principle.

"Even I"? I hardly ever discuss Warrington - how come I've got form?



My point was that even if their form has improved they really aren't a role model for us, now are they? My god, up from 10th to 8th in the league - wow - yes, pedantically that is an improvement. It certainly is by NO means an improvement that might not have been acchieved anyway.
but is it the sort of "improvement" that would make our critics happy?



Are you saying we would be happy to be where they are? I mean, smartarrsed quips aside - REALLY? Because I don't really see that they are doing [ithat[/i much better than us and I certainly don't recall the critics ever saying the Bulls would be coached by an obvious god if he could get them up to 8th.

Which was his point.



I'm sending you a new sarcasm detector as yours appears to be broken.

That sums up all the points I wanted to make but much better! Well done.

I would, for one, be happy with their form, yes. And with a play off place.

I am not holding Wire up as an example of what we are aiming for, but merely pointing out (as argued much more eloquently by Duckman above) that you can not argue that there has not been an improvement in their performance since a change of coach. I'm not saying that it would work for us, its just a fact.

Ah, stats. Which can be made to look as if they demonstrate anything. All I will say is that if a 68% ratio shows a good coach, then 2006 (where we got 34/56 SL points) = 60.7% and 2007 (where we got 35/54 SL points) = 64.8%.
These stats, by the same token, would tend to strongly support an argument that McNamara can coach at least to a similar success ratio. Bearing in mind the latter is over a full season, and 2007 (if memory serves) included 4 fixtures against Leeds, it's a proof, rather than an argument. And the season before too, although he was only coach for part of it.

Leeds were champions in 2007 when we were unfortuante enough to play them four times. Using the same calcs their coach scored 37/54 in 2007 = 68.5% Does this compare OK with McNamara's 64.8%? I'd say so.

In case you think this is a defence of McNamara, it isn't. It's a statement of the facts, just to show that the stats you cite are not in reality a sign of a vastly superior coaching setup. We've pretty much been there, done that under McNamara.

In every season there will be a couple of exceptional wins such as those against Leeds & St Helens. Its also to be expected that there will be a couple of rank bad performances eg Wigan away, Wolves at home. Those should really be discounted.

The 7 games that we've basically thrown away suggest a more serious malaise and really cant be ignored.

I agree with the last comment, but absolutely not discounting the wins against Saints and Leeds. They make things worse, as they show what the team can do if it wants.