Sack Flanagan

[I'm Hornby]

All I know and understand is a new coach = another rebuild phase

Another few years!
Farkkkk!

I've had enough of another few years, and would prefer to back the incumbent!
Yes, an extension should involve some hard examination of perceived nepotism however, currently their is no absolute standout better option for Kyle.
Even with Atkinson - Kyle is in the mix on his, bare minimum, equal talent alone.

We all had a go at our recruitment regarding forwards, but perhaps Flanno especially banked on his youth to fill the void.. We all are seeing the dividends in our youth.
It can only get better!

Coach deserves an extension

P.S. Truthfully, if Kyle is planned as a future 14 & means we lose Liddle - I will be pissed!

Absolute rubbish.

You don't tolerate shithouse results, once a coach has been given enough time, if the results aren't good enough, they get moved on, that's footy.

Extending a coach in hope that we might get better, is highly irresponsible.
There's not even an improvement from season to season to justify an extension of Flanagan.

Also who's to say a new coach would take years and years to get the team going?
Like I pointed out to another poster yesterday, Webster (a new school rookie who served his apprenticeship) took the warriors to a 4th place finish in his first season as coach.
Most on here would trade both their nuts for that right now.
If a new coach comes in, brings about some necessary changes to club management and makes a few astute signings, things can change quickly.

There is no world or alternate universe out there where Kyle is on par with Atkinson sorry mate, that's naivity at its finest right there.

Yes Flanagan's recruitment has been poor and that has forced his hand in giving younger players a debut that would not have been the case otherwise. That doesn't make him worthy of an extension.
If Flanagan's KPIs as coach were to debut as many of the young players as possible and don't worry about the results over three seasons, I think most coaches could fulfill that very very ridiculously low and achievable standard.

In no way is Flanagan deserving of an extension, in fact he needs to be moved on ASAP, his appointment is and always has been a big mistake.

 

[thebigredv]

Steve

2012–14

St George Illawarra

58

21

0

37

36% win

Paul

2014–20

St. George Illawarra

151

70

0

81

46% win

Anthony

2021–23

St. George Illawarra

58

22

0

36

38% win

Shane

2024–

St. George Illawarra

33

14

0

19

42% win

Interesting results. It's a results base business.
Mary has the edge at the moment, to some people's surprise, and Shane really needs to get positive results soon.

I'd day he is safe for a while yet. My advice: he is best to keep blooding the youth because what we've learned from the previous three, hanging on to old players doesn't get results - surprise surprise.

 

[mattw5]

Steve

2012–14

St George Illawarra

58

21

0

37

36% win

Paul

2014–20

St. George Illawarra

151

70

0

81

46% win

Anthony

2021–23

St. George Illawarra

58

22

0

36

38% win

Shane

2024–

St. George Illawarra

33

14

0

19

42% win

Interesting results. It's a results base business.
Mary has the edge at the moment, to some people's surprise, and Shane really needs to get positive results soon.

I'd day he is safe for a while yet. My advice: he is best to keep blooding the youth because what we've learned from the previous three, hanging on to old players doesn't get results - surprise surprise.

Mary also had far more time

 

[dragon thomo]

Ok Hornby who is your choice for coach. You keep on mouthing off with offers about Flannigan but who would you realistically chase for a coach. Keep in mind that no descent experienced applicant wants to work for us.
I will keep on saying it's our board and ownership that is the problem, until that changes we don't look like getting many quality applicants for coach.

 

[redVinme]

somehow even though Flano hasnt even had the support of a recruitment specialist or a CEO that isnt out the door a new rookie coach would be afforded all of those things and more?
makes sense.

 

[Illusion]

Ok Hornby who is your choice for coach. You keep on mouthing off with offers about Flannigan but who would you realistically chase for a coach. Keep in mind that no descent experienced applicant wants to work for us.
I will keep on saying it's our board and ownership that is the problem, until that changes we don't look like getting many quality applicants for coach.

This is the biggest problem .......... "it's our board and ownership that is the problem, until that changes we don't look like getting many quality applicants for coach" ............. These same blokes are still around when I was there ...........

 

[Slippery Morris]

So since Bennett left, Mary has looked better than all the others and is credited with 2 finals appearances in his time. In his first full year (he took over May 2014 when they were already cooked so we can exclude that - 2015 Saints finished 8th (+27), 2016 - 11th (-197), 2017 - 9th (+83), 2018 - 7th (+47) and then JDB saga hit and it went south big time. 2019 - 15th (-148) and he was gone mid 2020.

Flanno's first year - 11th (-126).

That is scary when a guy like Flanno is making an inept coach like Mary look good. I cannot see Flanno getting Saints to 2 out of 3 top 8 finishes like Mary did in his first 3 years. Big difference is Mary had guys like Widdop, Marshall, Hunt and Norman as halves and Flanno had Hunt 1 year and no other rep half. Even Mary knew how important it was to have a good half and not just vacate the spot to play his son a rookie or a discard. Releasing Hunt was a good call but no plan for a replacement which is just poor management. When Mary got rid of Widdop he brought in Norman. It ended up bad but at least Norman was a solid replacement.

 

[hook hook]

So since Bennett left, Mary has looked better than all the others and is credited with 2 finals appearances in his time. In his first full year (he took over May 2014 when they were already cooked so we can exclude that - 2015 Saints finished 8th (+27), 2016 - 11th (-197), 2017 - 9th (+83), 2018 - 7th (+47) and then JDB saga hit and it went south big time. 2019 - 15th (-148) and he was gone mid 2020.

Flanno's first year - 11th (-126).

That is scary when a guy like Flanno is making an inept coach like Mary look good. I cannot see Flanno getting Saints to 2 out of 3 top 8 finishes like Mary did in his first 3 years. Big difference is Mary had guys like Widdop, Marshall, Hunt and Norman as halves and Flanno had Hunt 1 year and no other rep half. Even Mary knew how important it was to have a good half and not just vacate the spot to play his son a rookie or a discard. Releasing Hunt was a good call but no plan for a replacement which is just poor management. When Mary got rid of Widdop he brought in Norman. It ended up bad but at least Norman was a solid replacement.

Not advocating for or against any coach, but coaching isn’t the only variable.
Edit: as you’ve rightly pointed out - You need to compare rosters as well.

To get further into the weeds, you also need to compare competition strength. I.e the spread of points from the better teams to the lower teams. If there is quantifiably weaker opposition such as 5 win a season tigers for example, the mid range teams are going to eke out more wins. Basically, while it’s easy to blame the win record in the coaches tenure, so many other things come into play

 

[redVinme]

So since Bennett left, Mary has looked better than all the others and is credited with 2 finals appearances in his time. In his first full year (he took over May 2014 when they were already cooked so we can exclude that - 2015 Saints finished 8th (+27), 2016 - 11th (-197), 2017 - 9th (+83), 2018 - 7th (+47) and then JDB saga hit and it went south big time. 2019 - 15th (-148) and he was gone mid 2020.

Flanno's first year - 11th (-126).

That is scary when a guy like Flanno is making an inept coach like Mary look good. I cannot see Flanno getting Saints to 2 out of 3 top 8 finishes like Mary did in his first 3 years. Big difference is Mary had guys like Widdop, Marshall, Hunt and Norman as halves and Flanno had Hunt 1 year and no other rep half. Even Mary knew how important it was to have a good half and not just vacate the spot to play his son a rookie or a discard. Releasing Hunt was a good call but no plan for a replacement which is just poor management. When Mary got rid of Widdop he brought in Norman. It ended up bad but at least Norman was a solid replacement.

Norman was barely any better than the morons we have now except he cost 800k. On of the clubs worst ever signings I cant agree there at all.

Same as Cook. Signed on name and will also be a handbrake.

 

[Slippery Morris]

You cannot really use squads as an excuse for the Mary v Flanno debate. Flanno got rid of Sullivan & Hunt and replaced them with his son and Illias. Sullivan has looked pretty good under Bennett this year so far but Flanno was quick to let him go for his son it was clear and obvious that Sullivan would have been a threat to his son. If Flanno wanted to he would have kept Sullivan and got the best out of him. Val replaced Lomax who probably wins Saints a couple of games with his boot this year. Well he beat Saints in the Parra game with his boot. Cook more or less replacement for Liddle who is now used as a second fiddle. Flanno has weakened the side more than anything from last season if you look in hindsight. The halves are shocking which is vital to every NRL team bar Flanno and Saints. Positions in the squad are are being weakened (halves and hooker) in order to fit his son in the squad. Nepotism at it's best.

I know Hunt and Lomax wanted to leave but do you really think Flanno tried hard enough to keep them? He gave up on Hunt half way through last year and Lomax more or less pushed to wing to plan for his replacement centre being Val.

I found it odd how the Dogs did not want a bar of Flanno when Baz got sacked and we can see why now unfortunately.

Geez I really hope Flanno can change my views but each week he is making it so much harder with his selections.

 

[KingFlanno7]

You cannot really use squads as an excuse for the Mary v Flanno debate. Flanno got rid of Sullivan & Hunt and replaced them with his son and Illias. Sullivan has looked pretty good under Bennett this year so far but Flanno was quick to let him go for his son it was clear and obvious that Sullivan would have been a threat to his son. If Flanno wanted to he would have kept Sullivan and got the best out of him. Val replaced Lomax who probably wins Saints a couple of games with his boot this year. Well he beat Saints in the Parra game with his boot. Cook more or less replacement for Liddle who is now used as a second fiddle. Flanno has weakened the side more than anything from last season if you look in hindsight. The halves are shocking which is vital to every NRL team bar Flanno and Saints. Positions in the squad are are being weakened (halves and hooker) in order to fit his son in the squad. Nepotism at it's best.

I know Hunt and Lomax wanted to leave but do you really think Flanno tried hard enough to keep them? He gave up on Hunt half way through last year and Lomax more or less pushed to wing to plan for his replacement centre being Val.

I found it odd how the Dogs did not want a bar of Flanno when Baz got sacked and we can see why now unfortunately.

Geez I really hope Flanno can change my views but each week he is making it so much harder with his selections.

Great post. Just to add to the last part even we didn't want Flanno as our first choice. If Ryles deal didn't fall through he would still be jobless and Kyle wouldn't of got a nice juicy extension. I won't even bother responding to idiots who think giving valid and factual points about our team and coach on an NRL forum is offensive to them.

 

[ruthless dragon]

Absolute rubbish.

You don't tolerate shithouse results, once a coach has been given enough time, if the results aren't good enough, they get moved on, that's footy.

Extending a coach in hope that we might get better, is highly irresponsible.
There's not even an improvement from season to season to justify an extension of Flanagan.

Also who's to say a new coach would take years and years to get the team going?
Like I pointed out to another poster yesterday, Webster (a new school rookie who served his apprenticeship) took the warriors to a 4th place finish in his first season as coach.
Most on here would trade both their nuts for that right now.
If a new coach comes in, brings about some necessary changes to club management and makes a few astute signings, things can change quickly.

There is no world or alternate universe out there where Kyle is on par with Atkinson sorry mate, that's naivity at its finest right there.

Yes Flanagan's recruitment has been poor and that has forced his hand in giving younger players a debut that would not have been the case otherwise. That doesn't make him worthy of an extension.
If Flanagan's KPIs as coach were to debut as many of the young players as possible and don't worry about the results over three seasons, I think most coaches could fulfill that very very ridiculously low and achievable standard.

In no way is Flanagan deserving of an extension, in fact he needs to be moved on ASAP, his appointment is and always has been a big mistake.

Your a Whiner "I'm Halfwit" why don't you go and support a net ball team.
Better still take this dickhead of a thread, started by another dickhead, jump on fat goerings Titanic 2 and along with all the conservatives and sink into oblivion.

 

[hook hook]

You cannot really use squads as an excuse for the Mary v Flanno debate. Flanno got rid of Sullivan & Hunt and replaced them with his son and Illias. Sullivan has looked pretty good under Bennett this year so far but Flanno was quick to let him go for his son it was clear and obvious that Sullivan would have been a threat to his son. If Flanno wanted to he would have kept Sullivan and got the best out of him. Val replaced Lomax who probably wins Saints a couple of games with his boot this year. Well he beat Saints in the Parra game with his boot. Cook more or less replacement for Liddle who is now used as a second fiddle. Flanno has weakened the side more than anything from last season if you look in hindsight. The halves are shocking which is vital to every NRL team bar Flanno and Saints. Positions in the squad are are being weakened (halves and hooker) in order to fit his son in the squad. Nepotism at it's best.

I know Hunt and Lomax wanted to leave but do you really think Flanno tried hard enough to keep them? He gave up on Hunt half way through last year and Lomax more or less pushed to wing to plan for his replacement centre being Val.

I found it odd how the Dogs did not want a bar of Flanno when Baz got sacked and we can see why now unfortunately.

Geez I really hope Flanno can change my views but each week he is making it so much harder with his selections.

well you can because marys state of origin players: Frizell, Hunt, JDB, Vaughan, Sims

Flannos: Hunt, Lomax, Sua
This year: Val

Stark contrast in quality of rosters, so i think its pretty fair to say you need to take them into account

 

[I'm Hornby]

Great post. Just to add to the last part even we didn't want Flanno as our first choice. If Ryles deal didn't fall through he would still be jobless and Kyle wouldn't of got a nice juicy extension. I won't even bother responding to idiots who think giving valid and factual points about our team and coach on an NRL forum is offensive to them.

And we would've ended up with a good new school coach who managed to get the front office sorted out as a condition of his employment as well.

What a shame.

 

[I'm Hornby]

well you can because marys state of origin players: Frizell, Hunt, JDB, Vaughan, Sims

Flannos: Hunt, Lomax, Sua
This year: Val

Stark contrast in quality of rosters, so i think its pretty fair to say you need to take them into account

Flanagan has had from June 2023 (coming up to two years) to build the roster he wants.

In that time he has let three origin players walk out the door and has let others go by the wayside in fear of paying 'overs'.

It's not an excuse anymore mate, he has had enough time to sort the roster out and on face value, roster quality has gotten worse since he got here.

 

[since77]

Hilarious that people are comparing McGregor to Flanno. Give Flanno our 2018 team and we probably win the comp. With McGregor in 2018 we limp into the finals after being March premiers and falling off a cliff late in the season as was usual in those years.

 

[I'm Hornby]

Hilarious that people are comparing McGregor to Flanno. Give Flanno our 2018 team and we probably win the comp. With McGregor in 2018 we limp into the finals after being March premiers and falling off a cliff late in the season as was usual in those years.

Wasn't Flanagan Mary's assistant for a while?
Must've learnt a few things from Mary in that time I reckon and it's showing.

 

[ruthless dragon]

Wasn't Flanagan Mary's assistant for a while?
Must've learnt a few things from Mary in that time I reckon and it's showing.

Your a Whiner "I'm Halfwit" why don't you go and support a net ball team.
Better still take this dickhead of a thread, started by another dickhead, jump on fat goerings Titanic 2 and along with all the conservatives and sink into oblivion.

 

[Mojo]

It's pretty simple: to get into the top 8 any side has to have a win : loss ratio better than 53% (ie; better than 9 teams out of 17). Top 4 requires 76% (better than 13 teams out of 17)

They are the KPI's for any coach.

As far as back-office, front-office, support staff etc. goes: did Bennett have pretty much the same structures? Because his win ratio with StGI was 65%. Obviously the make up of the squad is a major factor. The coach can change the squad to try to obtain the necessary results, but it doesn't change the coach's KPI's.

IMO - Bennett's sides are always solid in defence with relatively simple fast backline attack structures. Defence is the key. It sounds simple but, obviously, if your opponents can't score points your more than half way to winning.

 

[Dragonslayer]

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Cherry picking the negative and, like lemmings, some people just can't help themselves by following along.

So, let's cherry pick some Positives shall we:
2025 v's 2024
Points for: 198 v's 192 - positive
Points against: 213 v's 248 - positive
Tries/game: 3.5 v's 3.2 - positive
Tackles: 365 v's 338 - positive
Missed tackles/game: 24.3 v's 26.5 - positive
Points/game: 20 v's 17.7 - positive
Linebreaks/game: 5.5 v's 4.5 - positive
Run metres/game: 1634 v's 1562 - positive
Offloads/game: 10.8 v's 10.5 - positive

To go on unfettered about we haven't improved is just lies and bait for those who are just looking at the ladder position. And, if you really want to go all in on ladder position then take note that 8th is on 10 Points, we are on 8 ie 1 game out of the 8 (channeling Mary here).

Ah, if Val could only land a few more conversions as we are negative on this stat at 66.7% v's 75%.

All these stats are available on the NRL website, for those who actually want to do some research.

So, those lies, damn lies and statistics can make anything into whatever you want to believe.