Exactley that's the point that I've been making.

The Fergussons of this world are very much exceptions which actually prove the rule. It`s also common knowledge that Fergie was almost sacked by United many years back.........however they stuck by him. Yet another poor decision I guess..........

Teams lacking basic spirit get hammered every week they don`t lose by a few points. SL is a very competitive and unforgiving place without showing some spunk you won`t be losing by just five or six points.

There's no comparison between Fergie and McNamara. I know people like to pull this line about Fergie nearly getting sacked while trying to defend McNamara but there's a world of difference. Fergie had a management pedigree before joining Man Utd. He'd already won several trophies and that's why he was offered the job and why he was given the nessasary time. McNamara has won nothing before getting the job and looks even less likely to win anything as things stand

Well this is a team that beat both Saints and Leeds this year. You can't tell me that a better coach wouldn't have been able to use that same team to get better results than what we've had

That depends on the quality of opposition though does it not? A hammering from a top side I agree with, but a narrow defeat against a side that your are (on paper at least) expected to beat could also be an example of a team lacking in spirit?

Where the Leeds and Saints results come in I am not so sure but we have had hammerings of a couple of "bigger" sides in Wire and Wigan and a few narrow defeats against teams that we really should be expecting to win.

That's why I liked the suggested 'discount the best two/worst two results' idea. The norm is pretty consistent by that measure, close games with us winning one in three. There doesn't seem to be any correlation between the strength of the opposition and our likelihood of getting the win, so that remains a headscratcher.

Hmm, difficult to argue when you keep changing the level of argument

Anyway, I paraphrased your post as saying all coaches fail so there is no point in getting a new one, as they too will fail.

Its a ridiculous claim. Do you really need me to explain it further? Okay

What I think you are saying is something along the lines of...

All coaches fail because they get the sack or leave their post at [isome[/i point.

Okay, it is true all coaches leave their jobs at some point.

However, its also ridiculous . Its like saying that all people who leave their jobs, retire, etc have failed in their roles. Or, there is no point having a coach as they don't ultimately achieve.

Failure in coaching isn't necessarily counted in lost / won games. Its much more subtle than that. Many people would argue that Macca has failed and should be replaced. What you seem to be saying is that he shouldn't, as all coaches fail ultimatley. I don't believe the point on the thread is "do coaches achieve or fail" which is a huge topic. But should Macca go as he had failed.

I remember Hudds getting beaten every week last season but maintaining an incredible defensive record. Not many Hudds fans would now complain about Sharpe's dismissal.

Another alias ME?

More pots and kettles!

No, I actually just responded to someone else`s change of direction which brought Fergusson into it. Personally I wouldn`t regard changing the level of the debate as being a problem and it`s impossible not to change the level since quite a few of the `Macca must go`posters simply chant the mantra and don`t really try to debate any proper points but merely point to the league position. To be fair I don`t set the level but merely respond to it.

It`s also not me who is wanting to change a coach because of his win lose ratio. If you read a little more carefully (or to be fair start at the beginning, cos it seems you`ve come in part way through) you`ll see that I`m one of those who are actually suggesting that it`s `a bit more subtle than that`

My overall problem in this debate is that I don`t really have a `position` on Macca. I don`t know whether removing him would bring any benefit or whether leaving him in situ is going to be for the best either. All along, all I`ve done is suggest that removing him and bringing in another coach is no panacea. I`ve also brought in a few reasons why I think the club would find it difficult to end his contract (financial). This shouldn`t be interpreted as believing that his remaining here is definitely for the best, cos like the rest on here I`m not qualified to judge.

I don`t know who suggested that there is no point in having a coach, but it wasn`t me either(it`s also silly, btw). You`re also twisting my words a little (do you work for the Daily Mail?)when you say I said Macca shouldn`t be sacked, what I`ve said is that there is little point in sacking him(since there is absolutely no guarantee that any incoming coach will fare any better), which ain`t quite the same thing, particularly when the decision is to be based purely on the narrow issue of results, which, in any case, as I keep pointing out aren`t really as bad as the headline position would suggest. The job of first team coach is much wider than that, though I accept that many will judge purely on the first team (hence the bit about ultimate failure)

Your last paragraph is one I can totally agree with though: this thread isn`t about whether coaches (in general) achieve or fail, but then I only mentioned it in passing, someone else has done a whole post on it

this is the bit I'm struggling with

"...(T)hat I`ve said is that there is little point in sacking him(since there is absolutely no guarantee that any incoming coach will fare any better)"

There is no guarantee in anything if we are going to that degree.

No team would ever change coach on that basis (that's what I mean by changing the level of the argument from a Macca specific one to a far fetched claim that no coach could be guaranteed to do any better).

I think its a fair call to say that other coach (unnamed, perhaps unavailable coach) could potentially do better.

Your reasons for wanting to stick with Macca or not having yet made up your mind or not wanting to judge are all, of course, perfectly reasonable. But to say that he shouldn't be replaced as no coach could be guaranteed to do better is a false premise and an unsound argument.

Having said all that I'm prob being uncharitable in my reading of your post, but I just can't resist illogical claims. All the best, Si

A team of Worrincy's is your only hope.

I note "spirit" and "confidence" are being mentioned a lot, and you could certainly state a case for those both being lacking in our current performances.

If we take Salford's display on Friday here was a team who are no great shakes, not filled with star names and without any amazing attacking talent, however their performance suggested they had those "spirit" and "confidence" attributes in abundance.

Part of the reason for that, and the way for any side to start building that up, is that they had a discernible game plan and were able to stick to it, they might not have made many inroads into our defence but they did keep turning us around and tiring us out with mostly sensible play, and they got the rewards for it later on.

If you are a team of limited capability, like Salford and ourselves (the league table doesn't lie) then you take your team and develop a style that suits their play, mistakes are almost inevitable, but how else do you learn things other than by trying and repetition?

If everyone knows what they are supposed to be doing, and what their team-mate is supposed to be doing, then you can have more confidence in your role, and in your team-mates, and with that comes spirit unfortunately 75% of the time we don't look like we have a clue what we are supposed to be doing- if you actually watched Bradford and could identify that the coaching staff were trying to put some kind of system in place it might lead you to go a bit easier on them, as it is that doesn't look to be happening, we looked a disorganised mess all too often.