Yep, pretty fair.

Langley's try should have stood, but ultimately it would have mattered little, with our defence being almost non-exisitent at times. Their first try was laughable.

Pretty much, yes. For instance:

- Story of our lives
- Story of our lives
- Story of our season
deja vu.
- normal, in fact de rigueur by and large
- but we all KNEW they would keep on doing this, it is compulsory behaviour, it is like watching a stuck video looping
- just the latest in a season of juvenile kicking bloopers
- half the time this year he's looked like he's never practised a tactical kick in his life
- now where have we seen that aspect before? Oh yes, every home game and then some
- Nuff said
- Platt would have been absolutely slaughtered for this btw

if I were a conspiracy theorist I'd say it's bee agreed that it's open season on Deacon. This season you can't convincingly argue we would have won but for (!) but I am sick to death of him especially being taken out with shots to the head yet every one seems to count as a fair challenge. (Anyone else think Deacs in fact had one of his better games at HKR - despite some dodgy tactical kicking?)
deja vu deja vu deja vu and more dej-bleedin-vu
- se comment on previous quote
- well, why am I not surprised

Not sure that isn't a bit strong, since I am now confident that we can find a way to lose ANY game, at any time, in any circumstances. However I will in the Bulls' defence certainly say that this incident, and the deplorable attack on Deacon, undoubtedly made a very big difference. I don't want to be thought of as suggesting it cost us the game though since we fscked up plenty enough to deserve to lose. It was (as ever) in our own hands.


- glad someone was counting

- in spades














Fair report? Yes, all these things really did happen, and I don't think he's mentioned them all by a long chalk. How anyone can still think that it is not, overwhelmingly, the PLAYERS that are responsible for our downfall beats the hell out of me. Which of those is down to poor coaching?

Wary to post ths again as I realise that this sounds like excuse-making for SM... but this...


...is worth discussing at least, isn't it?

I've been saying the same for quite a while. Our underperforming players are not doing it because the coach tells them to.

I've noticed a correlation in sport & in work. That people consistently perform better for better managers.

The players clearly need to take some flak, its ultimately them that misses the tackle or drops the ball. But there is an argument that these errors from otherwise professional sportsmen could be coached out of them by good coaching is there not? And indeed if we agree its all the players fault and we have signed a bunch of duds, who signed them and who keeps playing them?

The problem McNamara has for me is the Warrington example from this year. Yes they have a backer and a new staduim. But taking just this season (so the finances were already set and the staduim has no effect), they were a collection of players who were making daft errors, finding ways to lose games, looking low on confidence and looking like a bottom 4 team. (sound familar?) They then change coach, dont sign anyone for cash just do one player swap to get a full back in and then they start to look like a unit, cut out most of the daft mistakes, play well, gain in confidence, rise up the league and very probably will be making a trip to wembely and make the playoffs with room to spare. Would this approach really not have worked at Bradford?? Would our players have posted better results under Smith?

I dont think there is an easy distinction to be made between the players faults and the coaches fault, both are to blame for different aspects as both are essentially the same unit. It is clearly not all McNamaras fault, but he does have issues that IMO he is not addressing so he is also accountable, and ultimately he is responsible for the players actions, fairly or not.

But the coach has the backing of the club, and McNamara is putting the side together for 2010, so its the players that we need to talk about changing as the coach is not changing.

The thing is, they are letting McNamara assemble a team for next year, but if we continue to be pi$$ poor and they have no option to get rid in the middle of next season then -unless Macca makes some quality signings- the new coach will be stuck with the same heap of turd. Mr. Hood, please get rid sooner rather than later.

I think Warrington is a fair comparison. Both teams are comparable in quality, though Wire have more talent in the centres & far more quality in depth. I would expect both teams to be vying for 3-5th place.
HKR are more interesting, I have seen them a number of times this season & think they have a very average squad of individuals, one or two exceptions obviously, but the sum of their parts is far stronger than Bradfords.

Sure McNamara doesn't coach players to make errors but whatever he DOES do doesn't seem to be working. What is clear is that performances have got worse over the past few years under his leadership.

Whatever he's been trying to do to turn things around isn't working. I remember him saying at the end of last season that in 2008 he learned more than ever before as a coach. It doesn't seem to have stood him in good stead.

It's time for a change.

It is excuse making.

'Confusion and indecisiveness' translates to poor game plan and a lack of preparation - which is coaching. If the players looks confused and indecisive it's often because they're not sure of their own roles, or because they're being switched too frequently between roles, or because the interchange isn't working (see endless examples).

'defence opened up again', 'tired defence', 'weak tackling' - poor defensive structure is also coaching and poor tackling technique (incidentally half the reason Deacon is continuously getting mullered - see last week and the Wire game) could also be a lack of coaching, although with Deacon's experience you'd expect it was more age catching up.

Now I could go on, but even if I were to go down the 'blame the players' route and agree with you and FA, you'd still have to concede these are the players he's brought in. This is the team HE has built, the team we were told to wait for. If he can't get them to play together, inspire confidence in them and reinforce core skills amongst them, then what use is he as a coach? As I have commented elsewhere there's very little about his 'leadership' as evidenced pitch side that would suggest he can inspire confidence. I've also tried to demonstrate that in attack we're extremely limited in the options we take and the predictable way they're executed. It's therefore unsurprising that with little confidence, a poor defensive structure and limited attacking options we're at the bottom of the table. This is, whether you like it or not - coaching.

We've seen the same elsewhere particularly at Wire under Cullen, players that can click one minute and look promising are the next minute giving the ball away under the slightest pressure, unable to hold a lead and look as though they're not bothered and/or lacking any confidence. The same players under a different coach can produce entirely different results given a different coaching regime. I'm sure McNamara was an excellent assistant coach but he hasn't made the step up.

Public goals aside, Steve must have set himself some private targets, I need to achieve at least x by (*specified date*) or it's time to go.

You'd like to think he was big enough to step down if he feels he's not meeting these.

I have been very much in the "Macca in" camp, but as weeks pass by with no improvement, I'm finding it harder to find anything to post in arguement to the "Macca for the chop" posts