Eelementary
Post Whore
- Messages
- 57,329
Barry - you can probably judge a coach by the results you see on the paddock as well, as well as the turnover off the paddock.
A good coach will have a defined game structure, run some kind of attacking plays, and have a defensive structure.
In that regard, both Hagan and Anderson were good coaches.
But then you look at how their recruitment efforts fared, and you realize they were a few eggs short of the dozen in that regard.
Kearney was like compound interest on bad debt.
Ricky doesn't have any attacking or defensive structure, and can't develop a player recruitment system - but can certainly sack somebody. We got the best out of him IMO - clear line in the sand and the chance for someone to start fresh next year.
Drawing a long bow there...
Hagan's gameplan at Newcastle: give it to Joey (and who could blame him, really?). If that failed...Umm...Erm...Well...
Hagan's gameplan at Parramatta: ...
He had the good fortune of having a team that included Nathan Cayless, Nathan Hindmarsh, Jarryd Hayne, Tim Smith, Timana Tahu, Mark Riddell, PJ Marsh, Luke Burt, Krisnan Inu, Feleti Mateo, Ian Hindmarsh and Eric Grothe, Jnr. - a handy squad. He finished his career at Parramatta with a 51% overall winning percentage.
At Newcastle, he boasted an incredible 54% winning percentage over six seasons - this, despite having talent such as Andrew Johns, Danny Buderus, Steve Simpson, Ben Kennedy, Robbie O'Davis, Timana Tahu, Matt Gidley and even Jarrod Mullen.
I know what you meant, but we should never, ever say the terms "Michael Hagan" and "good coach" in the same phrase, unless they are linked by the words "is not a very". He was woeful.