I appreciate your humility in acknowledging your earlier misjudgment regarding Shane Flanagan’s tenure, a sentiment I share despite our differing timelines of realization.
A small contingent of forum members identified Flanagan’s coaching deficiencies from the outset, and with each passing game, their prescience becomes increasingly evident.
The more I observe Flanagan’s approach, the more I discern the imprint of Paul McGregor—‘Mary’—from Flanagan’s time as an assistant coach at the Dragons. The parallels between the two are striking and troubling:
- Ineffective bench management: Rotations lack strategy, undermining the team’s endurance.
- Questionable team selections: Take, for instance, the perplexing decision to enter the last two matches with only one replacement front-rower—a glaring tactical oversight.
- Inconsistent performance: The team’s inability to deliver week-to-week reliability remains a persistent flaw.
- Failure to sustain effort: Rarely do we see a full 80-minute display, exposing a lack of conditioning or motivation.
- Short-sighted recruitment: There’s little evidence of a coherent long-term plan, compounded by subpar signings.
- Neglect of junior talent: A disregard for the development pipeline, paired with poor man-management, stifles potential.
- Nepotism: The consistent selection of favorites, notably his son Kyle, smacks of bias over merit.
I hope more of our fanbase—and fellow forum members—will muster the courage you’ve shown to admit their initial support was misplaced and begin questioning Flanagan’s suitability for the role. It’s disheartening, though unsurprising, that some who staunchly defended McGregor until his exit now repeat the pattern with Flanagan.
It falls to us, I believe, to challenge this inconsistency and hold those members accountable for their shifting standards.
As you’ve astutely noted, superior coaching alternatives exist. I remain optimistic that the Dragons will soon pivot to a head coach capable of steering the club toward a brighter, more sustainable future.
