Yes, you're right. I was just thinking losing semi finalists but from 2nd (and let's be honest, no hopers) to 1st and potential GF winners is still a big improvement.

We were champs before he took over but that has no relevance to this year's coach of the year. If he'd won it last year that would be relevant or if it was coach of the last 2 years it would but it's only coach of the year.

Again, that's not relevant. It's a comparative award (i.e. comparing to other coaches) so it doesn't matter if we weren't as good as at the back end of the year. It only matters that we were better than everyone else at that time which first place suggests we were.

Waney won it after we'd played some terrible stuff early in the year. I'm struggling to see a difference.

Right so the relevance only applies if it suits your argument? You can go back to last season to justify it, but that's where we stop and you can't to any further back.

Hypothetically a coach could take a team from 1st to 10th in year one and then 10th to 5th in year two. That still looks like a net loss to me.

If you admit there's no one with a great case and Lam finished top it seems a bit silly to say you don't get it at all

We've beaten Saints, Wire twice, Catalans away, Leeds and Hull three times. That's all the playoff teams, we only lost to Saints when we played kids and Leeds in the Cup which isn't relevant. Even if you include the cup Leeds have been very up and down and Watson finished 9th.

As for including 2018 and 2019 I don't think its fair to say we were champions when he took over and judge against that because we lost our best two players and he was in a weird caretaker position. This year I think it's fair to judge as he is the coach and we signed French and Hastings and we've finished top and made the Grand Final.

Don't get me wrong, I was surprised he won it and I'm not entirely convinced but these last 5 weeks have been very good and he's definitely got a case to be coach of the year.

Because it's the coach of the YEAR. How far do you want to go back? You compare any improvement against the baseline you started from in the year you're judging. Surely that's just common sense?

As for your hypothetical, if he'd taken his team from 1st to 10th he would (presumably) be the worst coach that year. It would have no bearing on whether he was eligible to win it the following year. If that were the case all coaches would have to be judged against their best ever year and Waney couldn't win it ever again after his double winning year, for example. In your example it would indeed be a net loss over 2 years but we are not talking about 'coach of the biennium', we're talking about 'coach of the year'.

No you don't at all and putting it in CAPITALS doesn't make it right.

You judge the performance across the season. What happened in the previous season doesn't count one bit. I can't see why you think it would. They didn't look at Lam and say "oh he finished 2nd in 2019 and finished 1st this year so he's the COTY"

I put it in capitals because the buttons don't work on this phone, therefore it's the only way to emphasise the year part. Are you actually saying you don't measure any improvement from a baseline? What do you measure it by then? How do you know if you're improving?

Are you actually reading my posts? You're agreeing with what I said. It's you who said that previous years matter. I said...in so many words...that they don't. I'm sorry if this comes across as condescending but there's no other way to say it; when I said "it's coach of the year not coach of the biennium" what exactly do you think that means?

In fact what do you think "You compare any improvement against the baseline you started from in the year you're judging." from the part you actually quoted means?

I think that’s the key as to why he won it, finishing top after a season like that is no mean feat. So put in that context I understand why. If we didn’t finish top and Saints did I’d hazard a guess that Lam doesn’t win but Woolf does.

Hypothetical of course

I'm saying the baseline is zero i.e it doesn't matter what they did the season before.

Everyone is on a level playing field and it's how they perform over that season that counts. Have they achieved with the squad they have etc, not have they improved from previous years like you said below...



The above reads like the previous seasons performance/finish/whatever has some impact on who wins the award.

So Lam has been voted coach of the year by all the other coaches/panel ( I presume) and people on here are having a debate as to is he worth it or not .
Also as we finished at the top we should be slight favourites as we did finish at the top.
If we win the final some will say-
We was lucky
Stains were unlucky
We should have scored more
If Stains had scored more they would have-beat us lol- etc etc etc

Just enjoy I will and I think we will win to be honest as we have the coach of the year and if we lose so be it but we will still have the coach of the year which has been a good year so far for Wigan Warriors.

The baseline can’t be zero. How can it possibly be from a level playing field?

That makes no sense.

If Chris Chester takes Wakefield into the top 4/5 next year he will undoubtedly win coach of the year even if Lam for example does the clean sweep.

Holbrook won it last year despite Watson taking Salford to the Grand Final, so in that example I would still expect Lam to win it especially if we were dominant.

It should be judged on expectation for me where possible. Watson taking Salford to a Grand Final is IMO a bigger achievement than Saints finishing top.

Of course it does - you can't factor in a previous seasons performance.

It's exactly the same as the player of the season awards, no one is looking at McShane and factoring in what he did in 2019. If anything the stats say he's got worse.

Like Egg Chasing said it's based on merit.

Supporters should be proud that any Wigan Coach is selected as winner of the Coach of the Year Award irrespective of who he is!

totally agree Ruddy Duck