Not sure why anybody needs coaching it. If I'm running a play as a half back I want the players where I want them, not some structure somebody else has put in to place. Isn't organising part of the HB's job description?

For one you are bob on

We have thrown £300k into the halves this season, to buy this "game management" everyone was wetting their kegs about.

Its working, the HB's are doing it. You watch us bring in a one game failure and it go to shiite

You're probably right there. That's why you'll find no one in sport uses coaches of any sort!!!!

The very best of the best in all sports are constantly coached and even change coaches whilst at the top, yet you think players that have had a couple of good games are above that.

Well, you win the award for 'best at missing the point'.

Management waffle, cliches?
You mean explaining why doing X can improve things, it's the job of the manager to make things work as best as they can with the tools/people they have.
You use everything possible to make it so, if you don't look at options and avenues even outside of your field you're less likely to succeed, if you can't trust your workers and gain their respect again you're less likely to succeed.

On the basis of your limited response especially the first one you appear not to understand much of anything with regard to leadership and being successful, that's fine but at least have the courtesy to give at least a little explanation as to what you don't 'get' or why you disagree with what I said.
I can point you in the right direction to some resources that might help if you'd like?

That's why you never got past branny U11's

Yeah, rory mcilroy knows how to hit a golf ball so I doubt he even bothers with a coach any more

Yeah, because signing a coach for the sake of it is the answer. Not needed and has a rubbish record.

Exactly. Might as well scrap the term head coach and just have a team picker

Fair enough but your previous post was still a crock of sheite

No it wasn't, it stated that I don't see the point in employing a coach to do a job I'd rather the HB did.
I earlier stated that if he was going to do more and look at the whole structure i'd want someone a lot better.

People on here pi$$ed themselves laughing at Wire for employing Agar and look what's happened! Now we're signing the lesser half of the dynamic duo and it's a good move???

Baffling, just like when people wanted Goulding, then Cookie.

You said it was pointless having a coach which is a gonads statement. You've now changed that to saying the wrong coach which is obvious. HB'S won't coach themselves as will no other sportsman, they need outside input. It's pretty basic in term of sporting management

No I didn't.


No I haven't.


Again, you just haven't understood what I said.

Go back to page 8 and read, this time read it in the context of the post I was replying to.

Why don't we see what role and responsibility Webster will take on before becoming dismissive if indeed he comes at all.

I can't believe some on here think just because we are on a decent run and have an experienced half in Pryce we don't need to try and continually improve and evolve and if it is perceived that his appointment will help that then they must be some reasoning to it.

Just because Pryce has experience and has won medals it doesn't make him able to become a successful coach.

Just a thought but why don't we give the guy a chance first before some shoot it down in flames.

Who said we don't need to continually improve?