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).
Actually wasn't Mario Libertini quoted as saying that Coach Anderson asked for an extension, so he could have security and with that he would make the plans for the future of the club. He got rid of Mateo, and trust me I am a big Mateo fan, I enjoyed watching him at the many different levels he played with at the club. But the decision was to not offer Mateo a contract that was matched by the Warriors. It was a key management plan for life after Cayless and the problem was he wasn't allowed to execute his plan.
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.
So lets look at Coach Andersons first 2 seasons at the Warriors as a comparison then.
2001 - 12 - 2 - 12 (Warriors First Finals)
2002 - 17 - 0 - 7 (Warriors First Grand Final and Dally M Coach of the year)
It is also to be noted that Daniel had to completely rebuild the Warriors after the club collapsed in 2000.
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.
He was forced out half way through 2004 so he had 3 and a half years at the warriors. His overall tally at that club was at 55%. There were rumours of a rift with the Polynesian players, but if the Warriors were honest it took 3 years and a Salary cap breach to even get back to competitive. So maybe the players were slacking off as per the Coaches claims. He was still coaching them at 55% for his tenure at the time he left.
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.
Players are a massive part to a coachs success, they have to believe in the coaches plans, and execute them without fail. I have heard stories of last year, our players failing in that regard, and I am quite sure the coach has referred to that as well this year. So you have to ask if they are not following the game plan, why ?
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.
Terminating Anderson's contract based on those results was a travesty. But it was seen by many as a club yearning for success. In that case the replacement has not been successful, by any measure. He will stay to the end of the year, but with a review of football operations underway, He has to turn this around of face the wrath of a board that maybe don't think they could secure an election win in December and April if the side picks up the spoon in a spectacularly bad season in September. Sorry to say so far the season has been a spectacular failure.
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.
And the week after he was asked the same question and gave a different answer, "They started listening to me"
Now if you look back at the season and that fantastic run. On game stands out, the Dragons at Kogarah on the Friday night round 26. We lost, we didn't score a point and many watching through the Dream was over.
What was really happening was Coach Anderson told them to go out and play how they liked. Then when they lost he told them that next week they would play to a game plan and win. They did.
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.
He also publicly declared that he knew what caused the turn around and made decisions based on a long term development of the club.
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.
He had long term plans, it is just that he wouldn't tell the board them until he was given a contract extention so as he could see the club through the retirement of Cayless, Hindmarsh and Burt.
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.
Yep football is always 50 shades of grey, however as I have stated above, a coach rebuilding a side can still get them to the finals. Those that right off last year as the worst roster in living memory, have short memories, that side with 15 more minutes football in a few games and they make the 8 quite easily. So why was it that we shut up shop at 65 minutes. Explain that one, or get Kearney to explain that one.
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.
We will see mate, but last week was a back against the wall game and in my opinion one of the Sharks worst this season.
Still it was good to get a win.
To quote the memorable Lou Brown from Major League:
Lou Brown- Major League said:
Ok, guys. We've won two games in a row. If we win tonight, its called a winning streak. IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE.
and that is what we are looking for, some consistency.
