Totally unacceptable.


Irrespective of your attitude to BN, the players are paid to do a job.


Strolling to a scrum when 14 points down shows contempt for the people who employ them, and more importantly the fans who are paying their wages.


I firmly believe that the captain should sort this out, but have already expressed my views on that one.


The point is the players need to realise that the supporters expect them to put the effort in.


I'm sure those fans who went out there feel this 10x over.

It's the one game where it REALLY shouldn't happen too as it's such an effort and expense to get to. I didn't go this year but did last and we were almost as poor in the first league game there last year.

If you have no belief or confidence in a leader do you think you would do your best and give your best? If you played a gameplan that consistently failed would you follow on happily?

You slate Locky constantly, but Locky is not the leader. Brian Noble is.

The players were knackered, and I think it showed they had nothing left to give. The problem isn't effort, it's how that effort is expressed.

Plus what was Riddell doin bootin it into touch when we were gettin battered?

Brian Noble is not on the pitch. Locky should have been yelling at the players to get their ar$es to that scrum pronto. (or if you subscribe to the "leading by example BS- be sprinting there and urging them to follow).


He did bugger all.



On the question of "would I give my best if I didn't like my leader"? Of course.


That is the nature of the world. Leading is not a popularity contest. The players are members of a team. They have to follow the gameplan set by the coach and have to apply themselves 100%. If the gameplan fails then the coach gets the flak. It is not the players job to question that.


It is their job to put in 100% effort and play to the best of their abilities.


I say again, ambling to a scrum is not an example of this. Frankly it's a disgrace and an insult to the fans.

But not in your book according to form. You have blamed the Chairman, the players and the captain, (who is picked by the coach).

Like it or not Brian Noble is the public leader of the club, IL is there due to his financial involvement BN is the lead selected individual at the club.

To blame SOL but not hold BN accountable, then man that selects him is a contradiction in terms in my opinion.

I have the impression you are ex forces, would you continue to back your direct leader into the field of battle who had continued to fail and whose tactics in that field lead to nothing more than failure all be it at much higher consequeces?

Oh I blame BN for keeping Lockers as captain. Terrible decision imo.


As for the armed forces analogy, that's a very different situation. I understand the point that you are making, but you cannot compare life and death to a game of rugby.

A better analogy would be a leader in business who you disagreed with, and the answer to that is yes I would follow whatever instructions I was given.

Leadership is leadership simply because life and death is not the direct issue does not change from the ability to lead, and nor should it affect the ability to follow.

Drones who follow are responsible for the state of the economy.

If leadership is not working in any aspect of life only someone with no confidence or lacking any asertiveness will follow and in the end the result will still be the same for all people involved, failure.

There is a theory that states in times gone by you got to the top by being the best. Today you get to the top by waiting for your superior to screw up. I take it you buy into this mentality.

Your biggest worry in war is dying, you avoid dying by being a good soldier. Your biggest worry in business is losing your job, you avoid losing your job by following your managers orders, regardless of whether it makes you a good worker.

It's the leader's job to get the best out of the team and individuals, to make them want to give their best. It is not the team members duty to follow and apply themselves blindly. Are you thinking about the difference between a manager and a leader?

Given the team is made up of a number of highly skilled players, many of whom have played at higher levels of the game than the current level of performance I have to wonder if Noble's style of play and coaching is the problem. Not because of the "it doesn't work" arguments, but simply because it makes turning up for work boring.

Imagine if you had a job that allowed you to enjoy your work and you had a reasonable level of freedom, new boss arrives and removes large chunks of the fun part and enforces some rigid structure, would you still be enthused at work or would you just be turning up and going through the motions?

Following the above makes you at best, a drone who won't progress, at worst, a sheep.

You've a lot to learn about the workplace pal.

If you're given an instruction by your boss (rugby coach or office manager)...

and you understand/like it - you get on with it.
and you don't understand it - you ask for clarification
and you don't agree with it - you can present a credible alternative.
and you don't like it - you can present a credible alternative, get on with it or get out.

Any Manager worth his salt will listen to employee suggestions, consider them on their merits and provide a suitable response, i.e. invoke the new proposals or continue with the currently methodology while explaining the the employee the merits of the existing system and the disadvantage(s) to the proposal.

Any Manager who fails to consider the suggestions of an employee is a) dictatorial and b) and bloody fool.

I think Lockers not urging the players on to form the scrum to stop the clock is a fair criticism of his captaincy. It has nothing to do with BN.

By the way, the same thing happened v Saints at least once later on in the game. No urgency to get to the scrum when behind.

If the players are too knackered to get a move on then that is an off field problem due to lack of fitness but I think this excuse isn't a very realistic one.

Dave

not often i do this, but i agree with justin morgan. 2 games in 3 or 4 days is too much.

Saints had Leeds sunday us thursday then Hull Monday yet no complaints, why? Because they won all 3 games. Says it all to me.