Kearney is not the problem

[Maroubra Eel]

So does anyone think Kearney shouldn't have been sacked?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

If he wasn't sacked the board would have been voted out. He had to go.

 

[Maroubra Eel]

Mate the board are in a better position than us to judge a coaches ability.

 

[strider]

If he wasn't sacked the board would have been voted out. He had to go.

so that is the ONLY reason he got sacked? - the board saving their arses

(not that I'm disagreeing with that being a big factor)

 

[lingard]

You obviously didn't see the difference in intensity the team has shown between their best and their worst this year.

It's nothing to do with them 'choosing' to play poorly; when they're put under pressure they don't have any other choice.

You don`t seem to know very much about team dynamics, coaching, or psychology. That`s okay. If you want to keep thinking it`s the weak mind-set of the players rather than the coach, that`s okay too. Myself, and a few others who know a thing or two about a thing or two, disagree.

 

[lingard]

If he wasn't sacked the board would have been voted out. He had to go.

Or they might now be voted out for not 'sticking to their guns' and keeping Kearney. After all, it`s long-term gain we`re after, isn`t it? I wonder why they did sack him, then?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Mate the board are in a better position than us to judge a coaches ability.

Who are 'Mate the Board'? Some band made up of your surfie mates who got a bit toey out beyond the breakers?

 

[Stagger eel]

You`re very gullible. Do you honestly think that any commentator is going to say, "Yes, that`s right; Parramatta are lucky that Stephen Kearney is gone. He wasn`t a very good coach"? Mate, they say the same thing every time a coach is sacked. They said it about Hagan, they said it about Anderson, they said it when Rick Stone left Newcastle and when Brian Smith left Newcastle and when Kevin Moore left Canterbury, etc, etc, etc. It`s a standard line. The media can`t say anything bad about the coach; but to say it was 'the players' fault, is safe, because they aren`t singling out an individual. You do know that, don`t you? :sarcasm:
And please tell me why you think that the whole Parramatta team would just say "Nope, we`re not going to perform for this coach"? They are professional sportsmen. You think they don`t like winning? You think that Tim Mannah and Hayne and Sandow might decide they don`t particularly care about pressing for State of Origin selection this year because they just don`t want to perform for this coach? You think all the young blokes who made the NRL side this year are going to say "f**k it, I`m not going to perform for this coach. F**k my career, I don`t care"? Are you really that naive?

first of all Rick Stone couldn't be that bad, he was replaced by arguebly the greatest coach of all time and is still on their payroll as an assistant, secondly..I didn't see the interview but I'm lead to believe Matt Johns asked Sticky, what's the first thing you're going to tell the players day 1 Training in November..Sticky's response was.."Are you blokes going to wait till i get sacked till you play that"?....ask Ricky if the current situation isn't all about attitude.

 

[Maroubra Eel]

Who are 'Mate the Board'? Some band made up of your surfie mates who got a bit toey out beyond the breakers?

Sounds like Currumbin Alley.

 

[Tony Bongo]

Sounds like Currumbin Alley.

Nah we don't get toey at Currumbin except for a few of the young fellas who watched the Bra Boys movie too many times. It's one of the best vibes on the Gold Coast for a crowded point break.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Mate the board are in a better position than us to judge a coaches ability.

That's for sure. They've also got their positions riding on the coach's performance. Or more to the point - the team's performance.

So when the team goes poorly, the coach is a nice uncomplicated scapegoat. Whatever was wrong with the team, the board obviously decided Kearney wasn't going to fix it in time to save their arses, and so they made the call. That's their right.

 

[strider]

That's for sure. They've also got their positions riding on the coach's performance. Or more to the point - the team's performance.

So when the team goes poorly, the coach is a nice uncomplicated scapegoat. Whatever was wrong with the team, the board obviously decided Kearney wasn't going to fix it in time to save their arses, and so they made the call. That's their right.

wow - twice now .... they are pretty weak then hey?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

You don`t seem to know very much about team dynamics

Wow. Despite spending my youth and most of adulthood playing team sports, and a few years in the infantry.

I just musn't be very observant.

coaching

You've obviously done more coaching than the rest of us. Why don't you fill us in.

or psychology.

;-)

That`s okay. If you want to keep thinking it`s the weak mind-set of the players rather than the coach, that`s okay too.

Hey thanks!

Myself, and a few others who know a thing or two about a thing or two, disagree.

I reckon one of you was the guy who asked Hindy if he would give 100% for the rest of the year.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Or they might now be voted out for not 'sticking to their guns' and keeping Kearney. After all, it`s long-term gain we`re after, isn`t it? I wonder why they did sack him, then?

A better option became available. Haven't you seen the articles? They were worried Stuart would sign with Canberra so they were forced to act.

They might have been hoping he would stick with NSW for another year.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

wow - twice now .... they are pretty weak then hey?

You can hardly call them indecisive.

 

[lingard]

first of all Rick Stone couldn't be that bad, he was replaced by arguebly the greatest coach of all time and is still on their payroll as an assistant, secondly..I didn't see the interview but I'm lead to believe Matt Johns asked Sticky, what's the first thing you're going to tell the players day 1 Training in November..Sticky's response was.."Are you blokes going to wait till i get sacked till you play that"?....ask Ricky if the current situation isn't all about attitude.

So, you reckon that things would have been pretty good under Kearney, if only the players had changed their attitude? Mate, when a playing group loses confidence in the coach because his game-plans and tactics are useless, and he doesn`t seem to be able to rectify things, and you just keep losing and losing, and then the coach admits that they can`t attract players because of their poor performance (because the coach`s game-plans, tactics, systems are woeful) - what do you reckon the players` attitudes would be like? My point is that players` attitudes are the responsibility of the coach.

 

[lingard]

Wow. Despite spending my youth and most of adulthood playing team sports, and a few years in the infantry.

I just musn't be very observant.



You've obviously done more coaching than the rest of us. Why don't you fill us in.



;-)



Hey thanks!



I reckon one of you was the guy who asked Hindy if he would give 100% for the rest of the year.

I guess you`re not very observant at that.
Possibly more than you.
That`s okay.
Yep, that was me, alright. :roll:

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

This thread will be going for the next 10 years. Part of the problem is in the thread title "Kearney is not the problem". It's an old trick, referred to as using a 'missing middle'. If stated in full, the thread title literally implies that 'There is only one problem at the Eels, and that problem is Kearney'. But there are about 6 slightly different debates going on.....There are some pretty fair arguments for saying that SK is/was part (or a big part) of the problem. There are also some pretty fair arguments to say that he isnt/wasn't the whole problem. OK....enough of the rhetoric lesson, time for more wine.

 

[Cloudsurfer]

first of all Rick Stone couldn't be that bad, he was replaced by arguebly the greatest coach of all time and is still on their payroll as an assistant, secondly..I didn't see the interview but I'm lead to believe Matt Johns asked Sticky, what's the first thing you're going to tell the players day 1 Training in November..Sticky's response was.."Are you blokes going to wait till i get sacked till you play that"?....ask Ricky if the current situation isn't all about attitude.

yeah I'm back...
Firstly, Johns asked Stuart what does he think about the eels situation now & Stuart answered he had been listening to the convo about it backstage & asked where has this performance been in the past 6, 8, 12 weeks (or longer...not totally sure of how many weeks he quoted but his inference was through the season) & asked if they were going to wait till he's punted (or a similar word) before they play this well again? the gist of it was he was questioning the team & individuals performance up to the last couple of games & if its based on their coach's demise then that's unacceptable. he went on to say he has an expectation of individual players responsibility to do their best and monitor their own performance & that he's big on that (paraphrasing a bit but if you see the interview you will see). To me it said that he will put those expectations on players etc & if they're capable why haven't they done it before now. Now, the cynical will say its because SK couldn't get them to perform but I would argue that Stuart is saying that is no excuse.
Secondly, you are all full of the teams performance right now (and understandably so) but a lot aren't giving credit for what SK did to get them to this point. imo it's taken at least 18 mths to get the team defensively sound with the roster available (what's the point of scoring tries if you can't stop the opposition getting them?) and once that had some traction the shackles got lifted - and if you don't think that was how it panned out - SK was still coach when they beat Storm & at the time there was an interview with one of the players (forgotten which) that said for the past few weeks prior that SK had given the halves the go ahead to open their game up.
And Maitua said in his post/pre match interview (can't remember which - again lol) for the last game that 4 to 6 weeks prior they had been practicing to play just how they played nb while SK was still coach & they just had to translate it onto the field what they'd been practising for that length of time in training.

Lastly, it has been great to see the enthusiasm (regardless of the motivation - impressing the new coach much?) but what impressed me was when the Broncos came back in the 2nd half the Eels went to controlled play of one=off hit ups & completion etc till they either received or created an opportunity to gain possession again then went back to attack. that was pure SK tactics & they did it because that's how they had been drilled & they finally got it.
I know there will be plenty of ongoing detractors for this post & the dyed-in-the-wool anti-SK brigade will rubbish it but still, there's no doubt that a lot of people are looking at the sudden 'turn-around' as something that says more about the team than SK's tenure. In saying that maybe he was probably the wrong coach at the wrong time...but conversely, he was probably the right coach at the right time - a catalyst. give him a break and move on. looking back he has probably benifitted the Eels in ways yet to be realised. Either way - these some of threads could be put to rest.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Spot on Cloudsurfer.

But most Eels fans just want to put the embarassment of the past two years behind them. The best way to do that is to put the whole blame on Kearney and then say "It wasn't us! It was Kearney and now he's gone!"

To enable that paradigm they will find it very hard to admit Kearney did any good at the club.

But what do you expect? Most league fans are simpletons.