Hindmarsh to consider another season

[Gronk]

He got axed for his results. How does the buck not stop with him?

It did stop with him an indeed that's why he got punted. It's a shame that a few here (hint, hint) are hell bent on defecting blame away from him. Facts are that the team went backwards under him

This discussion is about whether our poor form had anything to do with tactics, or more to the point, how likely it is that a bunch of slobs on the Internet knows more about the fundamentals of the game than a 200 game veteran. :lol:

Speak for yourself merkin.

 

[IFR33K]

Stress leave I reckon

I'd say forced retirement.

 

[oldmancraigy]

So you agree the problem wasn't our tactics.



They also did it on and off before he left - half a game here and there and the odd whole game.

So while I agree Kearney couldn't motivate them, to blame our tactics shows a lack of understanding. If you nitwits know that players need to support the ball carrier, then so does every coach, player and official in the game.

Well I'm not suggesting that supporting the ball carrier is the holy grail of rugby league!

I never agreed the problems wasn't our tactics. I think after 2 full off-seasons and the best part of 2 years, a coach ought to be right on top of his playing group. If he isn't, then he has failed as a coach.

You just can't blame the players for "lack of effort". You can't tell me that we have between 30-55 blokes being paid to play rugby league (firsts/wenties/u20s), and we can't find 17 of them who actually WANT to DO it???
Of course we can.

You can blame them for not showing up for a few months. If it's going on after 20 months then it's your fault as the coach. It kind of IS your job to get them "ready" to play footy.

 

[oldmancraigy]

He got axed for his results. How does the buck not stop with him?

This discussion is about whether our poor form had anything to do with tactics, or more to the point, how likely it is that a bunch of slobs on the Internet knows more about the fundamentals of the game than a 200 game veteran. :lol:

But how do you know it had nothing to do with tactics?

Paul Langmack was a 300 game veteran.
But he had no friggin' clue how to COACH the fundamentals of the game.

Unfortunately SKs place in history is 2nd in the queue behind Langmack. The proof is in the pudding, call it whatever you want, be that "tactics" or otherwise, SK wasn't up to it.
You simply cannot argue that he was, because he wasn't.

Now however well he did in the behind the scenes stuff is irrelevant to this particular discussion, because it's about whether our poor form was due to the coaches inability to teach the players how to play a certain way.
You're a smart guy Pou, surely you can concede that he wasn't up to scratch in that department?

 

[muznik]

Well I'd love to see him go round one more year but ultimately the decision is Nathans.

oops... is this the right thread ? :sarcasm:

 

[oldmancraigy]

Well I'd love to see him go round one more year but ultimately the decision is Nathans.

oops... is this the right thread ? :sarcasm:

No.