If that is directed at me there is no outrage. Just an expression of a sigh as we make another jobs for the boys appointment and then a moment later wonder how the Wire "bridesmaid" culture persists. True Ratchford has a lot of finals experience - losing them. I am sure he is a decent human being.

It's the idea that you need a Grand Final Winners Medal to coach that I can't get. How many coaches have you watched to come up with this?

My point is, I’m not sure it matters what people win as a player. There are more characteristics to look at. Richard Marshall couldn’t even win a coin toss as a player but won back to back titles as assistant at Saints. He came into Warrington as a “jobs for the boys appointment” twice, but has proved to be more than that. I think Peter Wallace is still an assistant at Penrith, again finishing his career there as a mate of the club. Didn’t win anything, but is in the best set up in the game.

Just because someone has been at a club for a while, and might not have won as much as they would have liked, doesn’t mean that aren’t good coaches. Sam Burgess himself won one title all his career and absolutely nothing else. Still doesn’t undermine his credentials as a promising coach. In a small and insular world as RL, clubs know each others people inside and out, you can’t escape the rumours of who’s doing what, and Ratch has constantly been held in high regard by everyone. There’s no story here.

You can see it happening but when? Lee Briers coming home.

You make fair points, he may turn out to be a fantastic coach, we just have no evidence of that at this stage. I'll summarise the counter points.

1. Ratchford has no coaching experience that we are aware of at any level*
2. We are supposedly trying to change culture. This perpetuates it, ensures a continuity.
3. We want the best people in the best positions. It would be very fortunate indeed if the best recruit we could find internationally for a youth coaching role happened to be a fullback retiring just at that point. We have had jobs for the boys for years and look where it has got us. Maybe it's time to change the approach.

What prompted me to put my head above the parapet, inviting the critique from the usual, in posting a contrary view for discussion was that someone on here had posted that "the era of jobs for the boys has gone". I would assert that this appointment proves that it has not. Just seems a convenient, lazy, appointment.

Anyway we do not have to agree and I can respect your view.

*Having said that I have just researched that Joel Tompkins (of all people) is Youth Performance Coach at Wigan so maybe it isn't that important. I guess the youngsters can ask "What do I need to do to win the GF Joel?" or "How was it playing and winning a WCC?". Ask Ratch that and he wouldn't have a clue.

Two different points here that are getting muddled up.

One do you have to be a serial winner as a player to be a good coach. My thoughts would be no, in your last point you reference your wannabe asking Joel but when Matty Peet was in that role he had even less experience than Ratch. I think the best setups have a mixture, so with Wigun Matty Peet might not be able to tell you what a GF win feels like but his assistants can.

The other jobs for the boys point. I think it very much depends on the job.I wasn't impressed with the selection process for the DoR, which is different to saying I don't think the current DoR isn't a good fit. For the very top jobs we need a rigours selection process to get the best out there. The Ratch situation is we are helping a player at the end of his playing career transition to his next career, we are helping him become a coach, Abe has even said that a job at Warrington isnt even a given yet. In this respect we are just being a good employer and treating an employee who has given many years of service help with their retirement/next phase.

If we turned around tomorrow and said that Ratchford is being apppinted head of youth development from 2026 without any assessment of his coaching ability or formal process then I'd agree with you, but that's isn't currently whats happening.

Good post and fair points, but inaccurate on Peet in terms of coaching experience. He was coach of Wigan St Pats before becoming a scholarship coach with Wigan part-time before becoming full time. He also left Wigan before coming back as assistant for the first team.

I agree though a balance is needed. Role models who have succeeded at the top level and know what it takes, and those with coaching experience who have worked successfully with and developed younger players. My view is Ratch is neither. I think it's sentimentality and helping a good ex-pro get on in the game in retirement. Generous by the club, great for Ratch, but is it great for us as a club? Time will tell.

In closing I like Ratch as a player, I think he gives his all and has been a good servant (as they say). He also comes across as a decent person and is well respected. He is at the end playing wise though and baffled at a playing contract.

PS - You get the issue with the DoR appointment. No-one is bagging Chambers as an individual, just the process of appointment. I don't believe we searched extensively for other candidates.

Unfortunately searching extensively is no guarantee of success in all jobs. If it was only so simple. Many have searched extensively in the past & failed. We have mixed it up a bit ... like others. I don't see this as a Warrington only issue.

I was always thinking after Burgess or at the time when we thought Holbrook was coming. Some was suggesting now but I was always happy for him to stay in NRL learning.

i dont mind the club offering Ratchford a coaching job...if that's what's happening... For all we know, he is a brilliant coach and he is being given a chance... he has spent along time at the club and he COULD have made a big impression in that regard.

i do however, find the 1 year playing extension a strange one.... im really not sure what he offers anymore.

It appears that Bateman will be yet another big money signing for Wakefield.

I`m happy that he is going there rather than us signing him to replace Nicholson for 2025.

His best days were several seasons ago & he wouldn`t have been a good recruit for Wire IMHO.

I am hoping the days of some OAP looking for a pension from us are done. Yes admittedly we caused that but signing young hungry players is the way to go and promoting from our academy. The one deviation from it is props we need something straight out of the package that gives us grunt up front.

I have banged that drum a fair bit in last few days and especially with the announcement of Ratchford getting a 1 year playing extension. It’s the one area I’d rather we spend on props. That said I am looking forward to see how Okoro goes when he gets a chance.

i'd quite like a big bulky prop/forward

The club shouldn’t been even considering giving Ratchford an extension of a playing contract. If it’s a coaching role then the club has to find a role to suit, so Ratchford can concentrate on his gaining his own experience to becoming a coach. Why offer a playing deal and using up cap space, if time on the pitch will be limited.

Burgess has bigger problems to solve, than worrying about keeping Ratchford In the playing squad. The squad needs strengthening in other areas, two props and a creative edge/centre are a must for next season.