Sorry mate but you can't say that about smart people. My argument is valid for the simple fact that it's my argument.
That sounds like the kind of sentence you have a dig at bartman for!!
Unfortunately there is such a thing as a non-sequitur. [a logical fallacy where the conclusion is not supported by its premise]
That's a fair assessment of your circular on SK.
You aim to focus on the fact that there are variables, claim that they are all working against him at the moment, and suggest that he is working to correct them all. How can you be wrong? Because if anyone points out failure in any of the variable components, then you just push that variable against another and point forward.
This kind of argument works over a small sample size. But our current sample is far too large for your argument to be successful, hence it actually IS dead in the water.
Especially considering one of your premises: it follow the lines of "if someone can't get a coaching job, then they aren't a very good coach."
And here's the uncomfortable non-variable that comes into play. No other team will be sacking their coach to bring in the alleged "master builder" Kearney.
You can push that up against as many variables as you like, but until he gets a job, your argument is now dead in the water. It could only possibly work when he was employed at the club.
I am also talking about development. Along with recruiting, they are the biggest part of what a coach brings at this level.
I base this on years of paying attention to the best coaches in their game and what they have to say about their role, as well as their results with different squads, and their teams' performances without certain key players.
Ever coached a sporting team? I've been coaching for many many years (basketball). 9 premierships with 3 different teams. Systems are extraordinarily important, but Xs and Os are equally so.
If you think that Bennett/ Bellamy don't do Xs and Os then you're as high as Casper.
You can call me a keyboard coach all you like. But I'd happily teach Ryan Morgan not to rush into the middle third of the field to mark the same person Maitua is already tackling. Oh wait, that is called tactics.
Every coach has them, you're just too simple to see that.
But even getting a squad to overachieve isn't the mark of a great coach - Brian Smith is probably the best coach in history at getting an average squad to perform at a consistently high level, but very few people consider him a great, and after 20+ years his lack of premierships speaks for itself.
But nobody can say the guy was a BAD coach. And when he came to clubs in salary cap hell with bad contracts, he found ways of improving from the get-go.
I think it's better to say a bad coach won't be able to prevent a good squad from underachieving (and this is more than just semantics). There are a multitude of reasons a good squad might underachieve and some of those reasons even the best coaches will be unable to resolve.
Difference between underachieving and so far gone it isn't funny.
This is why I think once the squad is assembled there isn't much a coach can do to stop the rot other than get rid of people - look at Cleary at Penrith. Making tougher decisions than Kearney all year, only has one extra win with two extra Origin players, but his job is safe.
And if Cleary regressed next season, then questions would be asked.
To be honest Kearney should have wielded the axe with more venom and he should have started with stripping the captaincy, like Cleary has done.
Exactly. His indecision has cost him. That's actually part of being a bad coach. The 'system' he used last year worked, he went away from it this year because he stopped trusting in it. But failed to act decisively, instead fumbled around with stupid experiments (like bringing Burt back from Wenty etc)
Just give up on the SK thing? You had some fun, you made some people look pretty stupid, you annoyed some people, but it's time to let it go. You don't even have to admit anything, just walk away from it and put your powers to good use!
It used to be interesting to read your take on a game, and where you thought things fell apart, who you thought played well. Get back to it please.
