:lol:
I do enjoy the level of authority and self importance you often speak with.......
The fact you've refused to even attempt to refute my arguments speaks volumes...
Is anyone treating him like a "messiah"? You can't judge a coach solely on how many premierships they've won. Anderson got 2 sides to Grand Finals, and overall has a very healthy record in making the semis. 4/5 seasons in fact which includes a minor premiership, 2 Grand Finals as well as a further preliminary final. So 5 seasons 3 of which he's got his side to the prelims or better. A lot better record than most current NRL coaches. Yet we replace him with someone who for all we know was responsible for placing witches hats down at Storm training sessions (and if his current results are anything to go by that's probably what his job was). That's what everyone is up in arms about.
True - but there is more to it than that. Anderson showed he had no plans for the future - he even made calls which made people's blood boil (not re-signing Mateo, for example).
His record in the NRL is impressive - and compared to Kearney's record (which, I must admit, is a little bit silly; Anderson is an experienced campaigner with more than 5 years' worth of games to his names, whereas Kearney barely has a year and a half to his), one can clearly see the man has talent.
But he has not achieved an NRL Premiership. He left the Warriors under dubious circumstances and was eventually forced out of Parramatta, too. I merely question whether he is the type of coach people claim he is - that is, a coach that can bring long-term stability and success.
I'll borrow PouPou's theory here .... Nathan Hindmarsh, 2 grand finals, 0 wins - so he mustn't be very good either
Therein lies the problem - a great proportion of those that criticise Kearney do so and seemingly refuse to acknowledge the players' role in our misfortunes. Hence when a Premiership used as a measure of success is brought up, it invariably involves the coach but not the players. Our current predicament is, apparently, solely Kearney's fault - therefore, coaches are the be-all and end-all and thus players not having won titles means nought.
Bullshit. A contract is not a guarantee of tenure. It is a legal agreement that typically would include clauses around how it can be terminated, including a timeframe.
To allow Kearney's contact to expire over time would be a travesty. His tenure already is. Every day longer indicates one of two things - either (a) the board is incompetent or (b) they simply cannot recruit a replacement. If (b) is true then goto (a).
So terminating Anderson's contract was a travesty, yet terminating Kearney's is the right thing to do?
Bravo - possibly the most accurate depiction of hypocrisy I have seen for quite some time.
Mate, nobody is making out Ando is the messiah (certainly not me). I am just of the opinion that he is a good coach (see his overall record) who got unfairly treated while he was here. He was then knifed in the back to be replaced by Kearney who is, IMO, a sorry excuse for a coach - and one who is being given far more time, respect & resources than he deserves (see his record).
Meanwhile, the people forgotten in all this - the fans - have to endure what is turning out to be another late 80's-early 90's era. It's hard to understand and even harder to take.
WOE
I liked Anderson. I didn't think he was the man to turn this club's fortunes around, but I liked him. And (at this stage, at least) it is easy to claim Anderson is a superior coach to Kearney. I, too, agree that he was treated unfairly - I think a coach should always get to see out their contract.
But the issue I have with Anderson is that his achievements are questionable. It is true he guided this club to a Grand Final appearance from eighth spot, and what a ride that was. He should certainly be commended for that effort. But it raises the question - why did we have to scrape into eighth spot the way we did? True - Parramatta has always been a slow-starting club. But it took until late in the season for this club to find any semblance of form under Anderson, and when he was quizzed about it, he gave his now infamous retort that he was not sure as to why they suddenly clicked.
So we have a club that made a Grand Final from eighth spot (a remarkable achievement), but before going on their famous run, they played dreadful football. They also had their coach publicly declare he did not know the reason for the turn-around, and said coach made some puzzling recruitment and retention decisions.
I suppose the crux of the point is that the Grand Final coach showed no genuine long-term plans. It is no secret the board did not want him, and that would undoubtedly have made life uncomfortable for him. But surely as a professional and Eels fan, he would have made some decisions to ensure the long-term viability of this club. All this is without even taking into account our 2010 season.
Fans are willing to crucify Kearney, but they forgive Anderson. They dismiss the fact it takes time to rebuild a club because they are impatient, and they point to his coaching record as supposed 'evidence' of his inability. The jury is still out on his ability, as far as I'm concerned, but here's food for thought: Tim Sheens (seen as a 'supercoach' by many) boasts a career win percentage of 46% with Wests (and boasted a win percentage of 27% over four years at North Queensland); Ricky Stuart (a coach many of the fans here seem to want to replace Kearney with) boasted a career winning percentage of 45% with Cronulla; Graham Murray boasts a career winning percentage of 54% (including 39% with the Mariners and 49% with the Cowboys); and lastly, the great Brian Smith won 32 out of 96 games over 4 years at the Steelers for a figure of 33% (and his figures at Newcastle were 44% over a similar time). All these coaches, who are regarded by man as pretty good coaches, had rough patches in their careers. Kearney is not in the same league as those other coaches, of course - but the point here is that football is never black and white. You have players refusing to do what they're told to do (I believe MITS said that the players said in 2009 they finally decided to listen and do what they said and they went on a run; I was relayed similar information in 2006 when Taylor was appointed); you have injuries to players; you have bad luck going your way; you have wrong game-plans being put forward for a specific team; and a myriad of other factors.
We've indeed won a paltry 8 games under Kearney's leadership. But the issue that stands out to me is the players 'deciding' they'd listen to their coach and start doing as he said - and lo and behold, they started winning. This is not exclusive to our club - I am sure every club goes through the same thing. But that is when the coach puts his foot down, clears the dead wood and builds the club up the way they want it to be. This process takes time, but it is necessary - at the end of the day, the players have to follow the coach's instructions. That is how the chain of command in sports flows. And if they are unwilling to listen to the coach, for whatever reason, then I hardly think the coach deserves all the blame.
We will probably never know the truth as to why this side is so enigmatic. But there have been glimpses (both this year and last year) of the side looking pretty good, followed by patches of complete garbage. Now, to me, that does not indicate a complete lack of talent/motivation/etc. from the coaching staff or playing group, but rather an attitude issue.
