OK. Yes, I have no “proof” but that’s why it’s called an opinion. I form my opinions by observations, not by blindly believing every quote I hear/read – which is usually used out of context to support the article being written. On the other side of the coin, can you “prove” there was no push on to get Anderson out? If you can prove this to me, then I will change my opinion. Of course, I am being facetious. We both know neither side can prove anything.
You make some good points – which are hard to argue with. “But his record with Parramatta was not great. Except for a nine week period where he really got that team firing, the rest was very ordinary.” Can’t argue with that. But I will remind you that pretty much everyone on this forum said at the start of Anderson’s tenure “if he avoids the wooden spoon this year, he will have done well”. No one expected anything in 2009. We all acknowledged we had an ordinary side & we accepted we were in for a struggling year. Anderson (that f**ked coach as you put it) realised this very early on but didn’t accept that was the way it had to be. His first move was to put Hayne at 6. We all scoffed at this & Hayne did struggle with it. But, as it turns out, Anderson was only seeing what may well be our future in years to come. He, this f**ked coach, saw very early on that Hayne was our only real marquee player. Of course, the no. 6 experiment failed. Anyway, Hayne really wanted to play his preferred position of fullback. Anderson went back to the drawing board. He decided we needed to play a different style of football if we were going to win games. He came up with a style where the halves played out in front of the forwards – something it appeared Brett Finch did not want to do & so was granted a release. He coupled this with lots of second phase play, creating space for the likes of Hayne to weave his magic. In other words, he saw our short comings & devised a plan to get the best out of what we had. It was unorthodox but it seemed to work for long enough to get us into the GF. You also have to remember that Anderson was hired by the previous administration. Early in 2009, once the new administration had come in, stories suddenly surfaced in the Telecrap about how Parramatta had made a mistake choosing Anderson as coach. And how they should have hired Stephen Kearney (a coincidence??). Yet, Anderson seemed to rise above all this. Call me crazy but that’s what a good coach does.
You bring up Daniel Mortimer & his continual selection as something Anderson should be taken to task for (not the board). OK. If it was purely Anderson’s decision then I agree with that assessment. But... if there is no “arrangement” to have Mortimer in the side, please explain why a coach of Anderson’s obvious ability & experience would continue to play a kid well out of his depth as a key member of the halves. And please explain Kearney’s recent public support of Mortimer in the halves even after the year Mortimer had in 2010. Remember, we struggled to score points this year. Our only real creativity came from Hayne – something the other teams had studied over the offseason & had devised plans to combat. Was Anderson really just that stubborn or was it something more to do with Mortimer’s contract? A contract Anderson (the coach) appears to have had nothing to do with (just like Tahu, coincidentally). If it were written in Mortimer’s contract that he was guaranteed a starting spot, then Anderson’s hands were tied and he was not simply bowing down to the board. This contract theory would go some way to explaining why Mortimer was “rested” & not “dropped” in 2010 as well. Surely, it couldn’t have been to save his confidence. Mortimer is supposedly so “tough”.
The other players you mention such Mateo, Mitchell and Keating (Matt) also pose questions. Perhaps, Mateo simply spat the dummy because the coach believed he was not delivering what he wanted. Who knows? I think it’s funny though, how the pro-Kearney crowd use such an example as Anderson’s inability to man-manage but, in the same breath, laude Kearney’s “toughness & no nonsense” approach as what this side needs. The Mitchell/Keating thing I admit has me buggered. I rate Anthony Mitchell well above Matt Keating in natural ability as a hooker. Can’t figure out what was going on there.
And lastly, [in my opinion] the situation with Hagan was different. Hagan inherited a very good team & turned it to sh!t. Anderson was given sh!t, squeezed what life he could out of it and then was not afforded the opportunity to rebuild the side into what he wanted over a few seasons. He over-achieved with a very average squad in his first year & paid the price because he couldn’t repeat the dose. If those 3 or 4 losses by small margins had been wins this year, he may well have done it again (speculation, of course).
In short, as said before, no one on this forum knows the “whole truth”. Anyone who claims they do is deluded. There are just too many grey areas for mine. Too many questions that have not been fully answered for me to accept the “official” version. We all watched this drama unfold & we all formed opinions of what we think happened. Obviously, some are happy to believe whatever they are told. That’s fair enough. I’m just not one of them.
Bring on 2011!
WOE
