Quote sally cinnamon="sally cinnamon"Of course I agree with you, the reason we picked up injuries wasn't to do with who the conditioner was, I was just being a smartbooty because thats what people were saying the last few years, blaming the conditioner....yet nobody has given Halmshaw 'credit' for our relatively injury free season which has enabled us at last to use our first teamers rather than relying on promoted academy players.
As for the backroom staff surely the relevant point is who the coach wants. The head coach and assistants have got to be singing from the same hymn sheet, so the head coach needs to have 'his men' onside. I would always give the head coach choice of who he wants to appoint and support that, the flip side is the head coach takes the responsibility for the results, so if they aren't good enough he should go. It's really impossible for anybody outside the camp to know how good an assistant coach/conditioner etc is at his job...commenting on it is just guesswork.'"
I wouldn't use the term 'injury free' we are nine games in and haven't had a long termer (there goes me putting a hex on things), but we are missing Riley, Anderson and Briers. Players who would be starting, if injuries were not prohibiting that. My personal take is that injuries eally are the luck of the draw, no amount of preparation will stop studs getting caught in the turf and twisting a knee. My take on conditioning is endurance. Do tyou have enough to track back and make that tackle in the 79th minute, although I do accept it is a laymans view on it.
I'm not quite sure I agree about singing from the same hymn sheet. By all means an assisitant should buy into the philosphy of a head coach, but he should also be in a positon to offer a differing opinion if it will improve things. See Phil Neal as reference in the England setup.
PS
I would question our ability to attract people from outside the club, bearing in mind our perilous financial state in the early 2000s.