Quote: anarkik "It is excuse making. '"
No it's not, it is my view, and I give it in probably far more detail than I ought. So don't tell me what I think. What I say IS what I think. I have no reason or wish to "make excuses" of any sort.
Quote: anarkik "If the players looks confused and indecisive it's often because they're not sure of their own roles, ...'"
I wouldn't buy that anyway, indeed the thought of the likes of Menzies being "unsure of his role" I find actually quite funny. But I don't need to buy it, as it is the players who have, repeatedly publicly stated that it was them not carrying out the game plan, and not the lack of/wrong game plan. So you don't need to theorise. Admissions have been made.
Quote: anarkik "'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. '"
Defensive patterns are in place and the players know how to operate them. We have seen that. It is the inexplicable spells where they won't play as a team that cost us all season long and that is much more therefore not doing what the coaches say than not being coached.
Anyway I don't really see why you seem so intent on contradicting my personal opinion that the lion's share of the blame here rests with the players. McNamara is far from absolved in my reckoning, the season is a disaster on any view and as head coach (as I keep getting told) he carries ultimate responsibility but I am not dealing in cliches or truisms, but in the detail of what I see.
And 90% of the glaring ricks I saw at HKR were not even things you ought to need to mention to a Super League standard player. What would the session be? "This week we're going to concentrate on not dropping the ball"?
Quote: anarkik "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. '"
Don't misquote me, I am not absolving McNamara of any blame, I am saying the players take the majority of the blame. As someone who thought our pack would be among the best in the league, even if our backs were less than great, I can hardly blame him for the unexpected slumps in performance. Indeed I still can't quite work out, looking at what we have had available, how it has come to this. But anyway in a nutshell, the question would be is he respnsible because these players are in fact crap? Or is he responsible because it was reasonable to think they were good but they have played crap? Even now, the majority seem to want to keep Menzies, Morrison, Burgess, Newton, Scruton, Kopczak. Is anyone suggesting that these are crap players? Nobody who knows anything.
Quote: anarkik "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? '"
Maybe none. Maybe lots. It depends on something we'll never know i.e. whether any other coach could have done better with this lot.
Quote: anarkik "As I have commented elsewhere there's very little about his 'leadership' as evidenced pitch side that would suggest he can inspire confidence. '"
... were it not for the odd fact that the players repeatedly and to the point of ad nauseam seem insistent that he does inspire confidence.
Quote: anarkik "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. '"
... and you've failed since it isn't really our attack that is the problem. I don't know if you noticed, but we score a fair share of points for bottom-of-the-pile nog-enders.
Quote: anarkik "It's therefore unsurprising that with little confidence, a poor defensive structure and limited attacking options we're at the bottom of the table. '"
I am 100% certain that the main reason we are where we are is repeated defensive capitulation spells that can last 10, 15 or 20 minutes. After that, the secondary reason is the ludicrous and embarrassing number of times we give up possession/field position in countless bizarre ways.
While at times on opponent's line undoubtedly we do look lethargic and lacking ideas, that is NOT in the top two reasons why we are where we are. I don't see how you could sensibly argue it was.
Quote: anarkik "This is, whether you like it or not - coaching.'"
But it's not, you see. It may be, or it may not be, or it may be a combination of coaching and players inexplicably doing crap things. My view is the latter predominates. You certainly can't sensibly say that a coach is responsible for all the horrendous catalogue of schoiolboy howlers we came up with at HKR. Can you?
Quote: anarkik "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.'"
Warrington? Am I reading this correctly? Warrington have lost 10, we've lost 12, but we've played 1 game less. They've scored 451 points against our 414 but again in one extra game. Given the agonising close-shave defeats we've (undeniably) had, and the highly comparable attacking stats, I can't believe you're holding Wire up as some sort of example of where we should be. They're 8th. Last year they finished 5th. Season before 7th. Season before 6th. The season before that, 4th. Yet you see some sort of coaching transformation? On which planet?!