Smokey,

It isn't nonsense. I have watched Kearney and how he responds to tricky interview questions and it is always the same, he doesn't go defensive and if there is something to own up about he does in quite a passive manner. Now compare that to the behaviour of McNamara (and whilst I didn't get the words exact his were far more rude).

Media support helps, you shouldn't go out to avoid it, whatever you think.

Why are all the RL media terrible? What campaigns have the BBC had from its journalists? The coverage and positivity has been very good but we shouldn't take the route of treating McNamara like he's Sir Alex Ferguson and asking only compliant questions and he, McNamara, shouldn't take the approach that he should only be asked questions he likes.

Compare his reactions after the French game (nice questions) to after the NZ game (mostly nice questions and then a chance to show that mistakes had been made with him coming out of it with a stronger rep for being conciliatory)

He could have handled it a lot more professionally but also shown human traits other than defensive behaviour and indignation.

I also thought McNamara's response to the question after Saturday's game showed a man who didn't have the composure to deal with the media very well. Again, though, I think that's when you wheel out your urbane, less-pressured team manager, rather than your hyped-up, upset coach. Phil Clarke would be perfect for that sort of role, for example.

Coming back to the position of whether the post is full or part-time, I think that I want to make it clear that I do not believe it would be a step back. We need to look at the roles required for the national game, and step away from coinsidering that they all have to be performed by one man.

Yes there needs to be a development pathway, and yes, training camps and get togethers need to be organised. But that is an admin job, not a coaching job. The only input the coach needs into such things is to name the players to be invited, and then work with them at and around the training camps. The bulk of the work there is in organisation and logistics, and that's a manager job, not a coach job. David Waite first took on the role of developing that structure, but it was clear that he saw that as his full-time talent-development role, as opposed to his role as coach of the national side, which is different.

The coach's job is picking the squad, which can easily be done from a part-time perspective. There's no actual reason why we couldn't use a selection panel of assistants and coaches from other clubs to help advise the national coach. There's only so many rugby league teams from which players can be selected, and our club coaches see an awful lot of their opponents' games in the course of their day jobs.

In terms of the actual coaching, that is very part-time, centred immediately before and during tournaments and matches. Events like the World Cup and 4 nations take place after the SL season, and so a club coach could be released for duty without too much difficulty.

I'm open-minded about this, and if someone like Sean Edwards or Wayne Bennet was willing to do it, but only full-time, then I'd say fine, full-time it is. But I see nothing which demands a full-time coach, as opposed to a full-time manager, with the best coach possible - part-time if necessary.

If you want examples of how the RL media are terrible, well take Chris Irvine for example, who can barely get through a paragraph without nursing a hard-on for Danny Brough, The BBC? Try taking a look at George Riley’s potical ‘investigation’ in to the financial state of the game. That was embarrassing not because of the wild, contextless and incorrect claims Riley made, but because it was poorly produced, poorly researched e that would fail a media-studies A level.

If Tanya Arnold wants to carry on pushing the same story she has been pushing for weeks, yet has failed to get enough proof to run, Im not sure why she should expect Steve McNamara to make her job easier for her.

The coaches job isn’t just picking the side any more though.

It is the weekly meetings with performance analysts, it is not only the organising the get togethers but deciding who to invite and what you are going to do there. It is deciding the game plan and working with the players to implement it.

This is something which happens every day, not every 9 months.

There isn’t one major sport which has a part-time national coach for a reason.

So multiple other people all clock the same thing and they are all wrong.

Do you insist on arguing on everything? Can you not understand when someone else's point is actually valid?

And she didn't push the point throughout. It was Arnold that interviewed him after the France game and she never broached the subject. McNamara was polite and smiled after that fixture, he handled it well because he didn't get a question that irked him.

She offered him a chance after the semi to redeem himself and he messed it up big time. He was measured and pleasant in his response to her first few questions but the moment she offered him a chance to show compassion he spat it in her face.

As for the other two, big deal, we have a couple of Journos that have agendas. Have you seen how many football have?? That sport is plagued with idiots masquerading as hacks. I would suggest you go onto football365.com and read the mediawatch page (updated daily). It is hilarious but also shows how sad some journos actually are. It isn't only our problem.

You know what to do if you don't like what they write? Don't read them.

Whether McNamara goes, the whole management set up needs shaking/freshening up - and we need to set, and stick to, higher standards. It speaks volumes that Nigel Wood is this morning quoted as saying, "To get to within 20 seconds of reaching the final is an achievement in itself".

No, it isn't Nigel. And this, to a great extent, is what is wrong. If the objective is to become a consistent force in international rugby league, and match it with the best, you simply cannot make statements like that.

Set tough targets, scrutinise every aspect of the plan to get us there, but most importantly, be brave enough - and honest enough - not to accept second best as achievement. Nigel Wood; you should step aside sir.

McNamara should only go if it's judged he has not achieved the stated goal(s) and we have somebody else to step in. Simple as that. One thing I do believe - we have to have a full time national coach. And that person needs to drive the highest standards. I actually think Steve Mc wouldn't agree with Wood.

I don't think too many people would agree with Nigel Wood. How he has managed to have a job of such stature with such weak strategic skills is beyond me.

Tanya Arnold and the old boys club of RL journalists had complained about McNamara being off with Arnold weeks ago. Unsurprisingly for pushing the same point she was pushing when you claim McNamara ‘spat it back in her face’.

If you don’t like what McNamara says, don’t read it. You don’t have to like him as a person, he doesn’t need to be a media presence.

I couldn’t care less if McNamara was the biggest arschehole this side of David Cameron. I don’t care if he comes across like a mix of John McCrirrick and the Australian Cricket team. McNamara’s job isn’t to glad hand, it isn’t to be a media bod. He is there to prepare England as best he can. The fact he has a poor relationship with some poor journalists and comes across poorly to some amateur PR men on a message board is irrelevant.

Not just old boy journo network it is the vast majority of people on this site as well. Read the historical threads for the Eng v Aus game. We were all appalled by his manners.

Wow, didn't you read what I said? She offered him the chance to come good and he missed it.

I rather do care what our national coach comes across as. If he is a poor communicator to the press he can also be considered to have the same skills away from the camera. How does an assistant coach tell him he is wrong, for example, if they choose the wrong player? This actually might actually be applicable to Rangi Chase. Did none of his assistants say, let's drop him for the Ireland/Fiji game and try Widdop? Did McNamara look at them like he had stood ina a turd?

Showing compassion is just as good, at the right time, to showing passion.

BTW, you are acting like a tool, thought I would just say.

Other than DG being your mate and both of you talking your standard "I am an expert crud" then yup, can't fault it.

and.....

So not only do you now have a half-memory of what McNamara actually said, but you have made up what Kearney would have said in the same situation and have now decided you can decide the intent behind the question.

ANybody would think you were making up things to fit your argument.


SO now you have jumped from not only criticising McNamara for something you half-remembered, a contrast to a Kearney quote you made up that never happened, The intent of the question you have no way of knowing, but now this apparently affected the way he interacted with the likes of Paul Deacon and the coaches he chose.

Steve McNamara or whoever is England coach needs to concentrate on preparing England and the problems they face, not fans on message boards and the problems they make up.


nobody cares.

Oh cruel irony

What do you think I have made up? I can provide evidence for anything I have asserted as fact.

I understand your point, but I disagree. You're describing a club coach role, in which the coach has to have an input every single week. The place where your analogy with other major sports breask down is that RL has a much smaller and less significant set of international demands than other major sports. In terms of number of games played, and resources abailable, we don't even come close to Soccer, RU or Cricket. Indeed, the latter two veery clearly have the international game in the driving seat, and the club game second. RL is very much the opposite.

We need to be honest with ourselves aout how much time a national coach would actually have to spend (or be allowed to spend) with his national players. The answer is not much.

Are you kidding? On that basis then, anyone can be given the role as their past experiences/results mean nothing.