What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Smith is failing: the proof

eloquentEEL

First Grade
Messages
8,065
Maroubra Eel said:
EELS13 said:
I firmly believe that one of the secrets of success next season is a bit of stability. We need players to be aware of their position, and know where they will fit into the weekends plans. Obviously an injury free season will help this. What i mean is, a player like Daniel Wagon for example should not be playing 5/8 one week (well never if i had my way.), in the centres the next week, than back to the bench. The best teams have a set core of players, with a few players who chop and change due to who ever the opposition is. It makes it hard, especially in defence, when you cant build up a confidence in the team mates either side of you. its hard enough keeping up with the opposition ,with out having to worry about the fact the the guy defending on your inside has defended in 5 different positions the last 3 weeks and may be caught out of position. This type of consistency and trust is brought about by playing week in, week out with people in set positions, and knowing there own job. I think consistency and an injury free run are essential to our chances in 2004.
So true Eels13.

amen
 
Messages
11,677
eels2win said:
Maroubra Eel said:
EELS13 said:
I firmly believe that one of the secrets of success next season is a bit of stability. We need players to be aware of their position, and know where they will fit into the weekends plans. Obviously an injury free season will help this. What i mean is, a player like Daniel Wagon for example should not be playing 5/8 one week (well never if i had my way.), in the centres the next week, than back to the bench. The best teams have a set core of players, with a few players who chop and change due to who ever the opposition is. It makes it hard, especially in defence, when you cant build up a confidence in the team mates either side of you. its hard enough keeping up with the opposition ,with out having to worry about the fact the the guy defending on your inside has defended in 5 different positions the last 3 weeks and may be caught out of position. This type of consistency and trust is brought about by playing week in, week out with people in set positions, and knowing there own job. I think consistency and an injury free run are essential to our chances in 2004.
So true Eels13.

amen

TESTIFY!
 

Misty Bee

First Grade
Messages
7,082
eels2win said:
Misty Bee said:
Smiths job is to ensure that the club gets the best value for money from each player.

How can you be so sure that he didn't? How do you know that the players would not have done worse under anyone else? How do you know that somebody else could have got more out of the players?

If a coach manages to get a player to a standard where they make every tackle at training, but in a match the player simply stuffs up and misses every second tackle, how is that the coach's fault?

How can I be sure that he didn't? Because a year ago Brett Hodgeson, Jason Moodie and Daniel Wagon were Origin players. Vella was a test player. 2 years ago roughly the same side rampaged through the same comp. 2 years ago we had one of the best defences in teh clubs history. This year we let in 30 points countless times.

Brian Smith HIMSELF says that his job is to ensure that the club gets value for money from the players. He states that his job is to turn the clubs player investment into onfield success.

Smith is the man in charge of the side. In UK soccer they have a more apt phrase: "manager". Smith is more than just a coach. He is the overseer of the operation. he employs the skills coaches, and the lower grade coaches. The coaching body is designed to ensure that players are trained in the skills required to slot into the top grade side. Smith is also chief recruiter.

In that capacity, if things go wrong, he is ultimately responsible, as any other manager is. Sure, players mush shoulder the blame for sub-par performances. However, the coach is responsible if the machine doesn't perform. And in 2003, it didn't.
 

The Colonel

Immortal
Messages
41,992
And in 2004 the club has decided that Brian Smith will be the coach.
:-k

Now can you see a pattern emerging?

Enough said
 

eloquentEEL

First Grade
Messages
8,065
Misty Bee said:
eels2win said:
Misty Bee said:
Smiths job is to ensure that the club gets the best value for money from each player.

How can you be so sure that he didn't? How do you know that the players would not have done worse under anyone else? How do you know that somebody else could have got more out of the players?

If a coach manages to get a player to a standard where they make every tackle at training, but in a match the player simply stuffs up and misses every second tackle, how is that the coach's fault?

How can I be sure that he didn't? Because a year ago Brett Hodgeson, Jason Moodie and Daniel Wagon were Origin players. Vella was a test player. 2 years ago roughly the same side rampaged through the same comp. 2 years ago we had one of the best defences in teh clubs history. This year we let in 30 points countless times.

Misty, you've come up with more of the same stuff but you haven't actually answered my question.

If anything, you have added to my argument.

You have stated that a "year ago" Hodgson was a SOO player. That is exactly my point. Last year he was, but this year he wasn't and that's what Smith had to work with. In this example, I think it's more a case of Hodgson's form affected Smith's performance, rather than Smith's performance affected Hodgson's. Do you agree, or do you still think somebody else could have gotten Hodgson to perform better?
 

Misty Bee

First Grade
Messages
7,082
YEah, I do think another coach would havedone better. Example, the roosters had planty of Origin players from last year: Wing, Fitzgibbon, Hodges et al. They all thrived again this year (injury notwithstanding). The Knights origin players - ditto (and they had a big injury toll as well - and made the semis). Yet no one this year can say that Kennedy, Berdueris et al failed.

If Hodgeson alone had had a form slump, your argument would have been fine. However, ALL OF THEM bar Lyon failed. What's the common denominator? The coach.

Putting the acid back on you lot for a sec - what proof do you have that Brian Smith coached the side to play to their best ability in 2003?
 

Y2Eel

First Grade
Messages
8,176
Suitman said:
Certainly not the first 16 rounds!!!!! :cry:

Suity
so smith thought after the first 16 rounds stuff this iam going to do my job now.... :idea:
 

Misty Bee

First Grade
Messages
7,082
Y2Eel said:
Suitman said:
Certainly not the first 16 rounds!!!!! :cry:

Suity
so smith thought after the first 16 rounds stuff this iam going to do my job now.... :idea:

Who knows? Maybe he did. Maybe powers that be had a word to him, as often happens in industry, and he decided to get the finger out to save his job.

There were rumours around at he time, you must recall.
 

half

Coach
Messages
16,735
smith has a long term contract so to suggest his motivation over turning the team around for the final rounds was to save his job is rather ludicrous

smith may have his faults, but i think he has the best interests of parra at heart
 

Twizzle

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
153,579
After 16 rounds we got some stabilty in the team which was missing at the start of the year.

Hindy came back.

Captain Cayless came back.

Witt got some confidence and maturity

Dykes came back and got fit (about time).

Morris went back to being the happy hooker.

Vella came back...then went again.

The team became consistent and Smithy had something to work with.

That's more than just a coincidence. I'm not trying to stick up for Smithy, the poiint that I am lobouring to make is that........I think some people may be a little bit too hard on him.

Not even the almighty Jack Gibson could not have got us out of the early season slump, with a different team each week.
 

Misty Bee

First Grade
Messages
7,082
parrot said:
smith has a long term contract so to suggest his motivation over turning the team around for the final rounds was to save his job is rather ludicrous



Maybe, but Parra were showing the classic symptoms of a club beginning to begin questioning their coach. All of a sudden the board publicly backed Smith - a sure fire sign that they might be thinnking along other lines. Then, club head (Fitzy) has a huge public row with club legend (Sterlo). The press start musing about the options.

Finally, a club cleanout. Cleal gone. Flanagan gone. Many high profile players gone.

smith may have his faults, but i think he has the best interests of parra at heart

Craig Coleman undoubtedly had Souths best interests at heart as well.

If this job is only about having the clubs best interests at heart, then why not give the job to a fan, say Suity? I'm sure the club could save a motza on wages, even if it meant a bit more on Pierre Cardan socks ;-)

So why a coach, and not just a fan? Because of the responsibility. Smith ios responsible for the running and fnuctioning of the team. In 2003, the team failed, and that is ultimately his responsibility.
 

Misty Bee

First Grade
Messages
7,082
Twizzle said:
After 16 rounds we got some stabilty in the team which was missing at the start of the year.

Hindy came back.

Captain Cayless came back.

Witt got some confidence and maturity

Dykes came back and got fit (about time).

Morris went back to being the happy hooker.

Vella came back...then went again.

The team became consistent and Smithy had something to work with.

And in round 1, with Hindy on for half a game, and Burt, Cayless, Dykes, and Vella playing, and Morris at happy hooker, Easts flogged us. And the next week, with all but Hindy playing, Saints flogged us? So on, so forth?

That's more than just a coincidence. I'm not trying to stick up for Smithy, the poiint that I am lobouring to make is that........I think some people may be a little bit too hard on him.

Not even the almighty Jack Gibson could not have got us out of the early season slump, with a different team each week.

Totally wrong there. Gibson was the master of plucking the reserve grade winger and putting him into hooker in firsts, only to see the newcomer have a blinder. happened time and time again.

Gibbo won grand finals with big guns suddenly unavailable. Twas a Gibson innovation to put Arthur Beetson suddenly into the second row in the '75 grand final.In that smae game, mark harris was replaced by John Rheinberger, a lower grade 5/8 making his first grade debut. Easts won 38-0 - an all time record.

On the eve of the 1981 finals, Mick Patterson was lost through injury. Brett Kenny was slotted into 5/8, and the rest is history. Parra's forward pack were always disrputed just before grand finals because of injuries to Hilditch (82 and 83) as well as other forwards. Parra never flinched.

And Ray Price was replaced with a broken ankle midway through the second half iof the 81 GF, with Newtown in front. Parra still won.

All of a sudden injuries are an insurmountable hurdle under Brian Smith.
 

Twizzle

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
153,579
Your talking about one player being plucked from obscurity... and being given a life, on each ocasion.

I'm talking about half a team or more missing for 16 rounds.

I'll concede your point aginst the chooks and the saints. They started the year off in good form. It's more the other 14 rounds where the injury toll mounted.

We didn't start 2001 off very well, but ended up minor prems.

Don't get me wrong.....I'm not Smithy's greatest fan.....I would much prefer Gibbo.

There were several weeks this year where we had 13 players on the injured list.

The mighty Jack would have to pull more than one or two players out of his you know what, to match his previous achievements, if he had Smithy's job this year.
 

Misty Bee

First Grade
Messages
7,082
I can recall when Parra had half it's team on rep duty, and they would still win handsomly under Gibson!

Parra might have had 13 injuries, but realistically we never had half the first grade side out. Cayless, Vella, Hindmarsh, Burt, Hodgeson and Moodie missing was, from memory, the worst (plus fringe 1st graders). However, this possibly lasted for 2-3 weeks, max. From memory, wasn't that the period from the second Canberra flogging to the Warriors/Cowpats wins?

In that timethe players left, bar Hopkins, Morris and young Witt, were largely useless. The 2 last gasp wins were more miracle than anything else, and the better side lost. Wins over Saints, Brisbane, Manly and Cronulla were more richly deserved, and that's when bloked like Wagon et al decided to fire.

You can blame injuries, but look at the WHOLE picture. Players were out of form. Players did stupid things - remember the first half efforts v Canterbury?

6eams always have injuries - it's a fact of life. tehre has not been a great EEl player that didn't miss large chunks of seasons through injuries. It's not injuries that concern me, so much that the form of uninjured players.

Missing Hindy, Cayless and Burt meant nothing if the rest of the side played below par. The Melbourne and Penrith games showed that, even WITH Hindy and Cayless, players not performing up to scratch is the REAL killer.

That's why I don't blame injuries. had Parra players tries their clakker out all year, and finished 9th, no probs. Fix the problem in other ways (player recruitment etc). But seeing player play below par for so long, and wind up underachieving, means that there is a problem.

You lot say that we would have made the semis if Hindy was around for those close losses (Manly, Melbourne etc). I'm saying that if the players at the time, like Wagon et al, HAD played decent footy, we would have made the semis anyway! So it isn't injuries that cost our season.

It was motivation. Skills. Timing. Confidence. Teamwork. Defence. All the things a coach is responsible for.
 

Misty Bee

First Grade
Messages
7,082
Do you ever get tired of slagging off people? Or being the worlds most pathetic poster?

If you aint intelligent enough to handle the argument, Smith lover, piss off!
 

half

Coach
Messages
16,735
Misty Bee said:
Do you ever get tired of slagging off people? Or being the worlds most pathetic poster?
i love slagging off people, but i'm not gonna write 5 essays each day slagging off the same person - i think that's kinda nutty. you don't like smith. we get the point
 

Misty Bee

First Grade
Messages
7,082
You get the point? Good.

Now I was discussing comparisons between Gibson and Smith in timesof injuries with Twizzle in a civilised manner. Don't interrupt again, there's a good boy.
 

Latest posts

Top