Kearney

[lingard]

That's not fair - he openly and willingly takes responsibility for his team's lacklustre start to the year. What - he should blame himself for players missing tackles and being lazy, too?

He shouldn`t single players out in the media. When Daniel Anderson singled out Jarryd Hayne at a press conference, it created a furore. Remember? But Kearney does it and it`s okay? Not saying he`s the only coach who`s ever done it; but a rookie like him with such a poor record, shouldn`t be doing it at all. If he had the aura of a Wayne Bennett or Craig Bellamy, it might be different, but this guy has NO credibility YET.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

But Kearney does it and it`s okay?

It's obviously not ok because here you are f**king whinging about it.

The Kearney haters seem to think because not everyone hates him that in fact everyone (besides the haters) thinks he's the best coach ever.

The haters are far from a minority lingard, and the non-haters don't all think he's the second coming of Jack Gibson.

Nothing Kearney does is ok. The Sack Kearney! brigade makes that perfectly clear any time he ever does anything.

 

[Eels Dude]

Nothing Kearney does is ok. The Sack Kearney! brigade makes that perfectly clear any time he ever does anything.

It's not what he does, it's what he doesn't do ;-)

 

[TheParraboy]

It's obviously not ok because here you are f**king whinging about it.

The Kearney haters seem to think because not everyone hates him that in fact everyone (besides the haters) thinks he's the best coach ever.

The haters are far from a minority lingard, and the non-haters don't all think he's the second coming of Jack Gibson.

Nothing Kearney does is ok. The Sack Kearney! brigade makes that perfectly clear any time he ever does anything.

Hey thats not true

Many thought what a nice lad he was after Rd 1 last year ....

 

[Eelementary]

He shouldn`t single players out in the media. When Daniel Anderson singled out Jarryd Hayne at a press conference, it created a furore. Remember? But Kearney does it and it`s okay? Not saying he`s the only coach who`s ever done it; but a rookie like him with such a poor record, shouldn`t be doing it at all. If he had the aura of a Wayne Bennett or Craig Bellamy, it might be different, but this guy has NO credibility YET.

Daniel Anderson was well within his right to say what he said - which, I believe, was simply telling Jarryd to lift in a public forum. No big deal. Likewise, what Kearney has said is not a big deal - he rightfully exemplified poor play from two blokes that, at those times, cost us.

I think people need to think before they comment.

 

[bartman]

I think people need to think before they comment.

As does Kearney...:sarcasm:

 

[Poupou Escobar]

It's not what he does, it's what he doesn't do ;-)

No, it's definitely what he does. Hence lingard's comment about "When Kearney does it it's ok."

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Daniel Anderson was well within his right to say what he said

f**ken oath he was. He was the coach; he can say what he wants.

If a player takes it the wrong way and chucks a hissy fit then it's the coach's job to make a decision about that player.

If the player has a massive profile and a long contract, then the coach should take that into account, but ultimately it's his employers he has to keep happy. Because all players come and go.

 

[bartman]

As do all coaches... thankfully.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

As do all coaches... thankfully.

Let's just hope by the time Kearney has moved on he will go down as one of the Eels greats.

 

[bartman]

Sure, but can we afford to wait until 2034 when he finally gets his coaching win record above 50%?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Sure, but can we afford to wait until 2034 when he finally gets his coaching win record above 50%?

Gee, nobody cared about Brian Smith's win record when we consistently lost finals matches we should have won.

I'm sure you'll agree a premiership win or two will render irrelevant Kearney's early 'sweepout years' with the club.

 

[bartman]

Yes, but how likely is a premiership under Kearney in the foreseeable future?
Maybe only a 7 in 34 chance? As the weeks go by, maybe not even that? :crazy:

 

[Eels Dude]

Gee, nobody cared about Brian Smith's win record when we consistently lost finals matches we should have won.

I'm sure you'll agree a premiership win or two will render irrelevant Kearney's early 'sweepout years' with the club.

How many finals game did we lose under Brian Smith that we were expected to win though? I count 5, but I also count 3 finals games where we were underdogs yet won. That's not a good record but it's not a terrible record either.

 

[Someone]

at the start of the season your chance of winning a premiership is 1/16.

the performances you put in through the season dictate how those odds deviate.

 

[strider]

How many finals game did we lose under Brian Smith that we were expected to win though? I count 5, but I also count 3 finals games where we were underdogs yet won. That's not a good record but it's not a terrible record either.

what are the 5?

 

[ParraAds]

He isn't playing first receiver this year; he is playing wide on the right (as well as kick returns and hit ups just like most of his touches last night).

Last year (and the year before) Hayne played plenty of first receiver, especially in the 6 jersey. I'd say that's the comparison Sterlo is making.

I don't think he'd bother mentioning it unless he thought it was still an issue, which it clearly is.

 

[Bigfella]

A finals game can always be lost. If there is expectation to win you are really looking at it the wrong way.

I reckon our players felt the same way at periods too.

 

[oldmancraigy]

what are the 5?

I reckon I can think of 3.

The Dogs game (or the Carige game?)

The 2001 GF

The 2005 major semi



Apart from that we actually mostly WON finals games in which we weren't favourites.

 

[hineyrulz]

The 99 Major Semi against the Storm was one we were favoured to win.