Smith is failing: the proof

[The Colonel]

We'll never know whether Smith was doing his job at this time, will we???
Suity

This is a great point. As supporters we can only theorise that Smith is or is not doing his job. We are not in the sheds with them. Just because a player doesn't perform it doesn't necessarily mean that the coach is the problem. It also doesn't mean that he isn't the problem.

However, the fact that Vella, Wagon, Moodie or some other player did or didn't have a good game could be based on many factors. Smith has tried to liven players up - he has dropped a few players - could have dropped many more but didn't.


"I don't care how much talent a team has -- if the boys don't think tough, practice tough, and live tough, how can they play tough on Saturday?."

If you ask me - if some of these players got off their a&$e and went and got a job like they used to have to they would be much better off. They have too much money and too much time - full time professionalism knocks them about. Chan and Galuvao - case in point. They both had to get jobs and train full time. Made them hungrier to succeed.

Smith from all accounts is a hard taskmaster - and from what I have seen he tries to make the team tough. Whether the players are up to the standard or not remains to be seen over time........ maybe they weren't tough enough or maybe Smith was too tough?

I don't know? But do you????

 

[Redback71]

why do people always have to bag out smithy does matter what forum it is is if the subject is the eels you can be sure that sooner or later they will bag smithy. his a great coach full stop sure the team has not performed to standard the last cople of years but look how well we went in the 2nd half of the season with caylee and hindy back we only lost 2 games granted there was 2 byes but thats not the point, the point is with a full squad and a defense to the 2001 standards we will win games.



ps: a point i thought of to out of all the coaches in the nrl and correct me if im wrong would smithy be one of the most successful coaches in regards of players and other coaches that have come thru him, and if thats the case with so many understudys out there playing for other teams would thay not know how he works and thinks and tactics he would use in certain situations. and be able to conteract making his tactics less affective. :?:

 

[Suitman]

eh?
Come again.

Suity

 

[Misty Bee]

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?

would you perhaps be referring to the period where we had a string of losses by 2 points? where any one of the injured players (let alone 3, 4 or 5 of them) could have made the difference to one game and possibly our entire season?

How come those losses were all the fault of injuries, and NOT the fault of players out of form? Can't you understand that if Wagon, Vella, Hodgeson, Moodie et al played decent footy, we might have actually WON? It all came down to Morris, Hopkins, Peterson, Killer and young Witt to carry the rest of the side through those times. However, according to yuo, the only reason we lost was that Nathan Hindmarsh was missing. Then you tell us we aren't a 1 man team!

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?

do you blame the coach for players being out of form and doing stupid things?

Well, has the coach got some responsibility here? The answer is yes. If the answer is no, then why employ a coach? Smith has to take some responsibility for Origin and test players playing like crap!

had Parra players tries their clakker out all year, and finished 9th, no probs.

Misty... this is a quote that is not at home coming out of your mouth. I remember very clearly that you gave me plenty of crap for daring to suggest these sentiments on the parraeels board (in fact, it was the basis of our first clash). You stated that unless they win a premiership, you would not be happy even if the players did their best. Now, make up your mind 'cos you can't have it both ways.

Wrong - we are talking about different things. If the players tried their clakker out, then it clearly isn't a coaching problem - it's a player problem. When the situation is reversed - eg a side with 11 rep players missing ouit on the finals, the coach needs to be responsible for that.

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, with all the responsibility you place on a coach, Superman wouldn't come up to scratch.

And that is a rediculous statement. Which of the above mentioned things would a coach NOT be responsible for?

 

[Y2Eel]

[Misty wrote]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.[blah]

Ok the coach we all know is responsible for all that stuff but come down to it when they run on the field the coach cannot do anything else for the players well not too much anyway..EG against penrith when wagon made the break he didnt pass the ball to morris on the inside which would have blown the score out to 18-0 which would have made the guys more confident after that the game went down hill so i dunno how much smith can do on the condidence part... The captain also has alot to do with confidence all the guys on the field do actually....

 

[Misty Bee]

OK, then if that's the case - ie, for most of the year players have ignored the coached instructions, WHY WAS THERE NOT A MASS SACKING OF PLAYERS?????

We will go nowhere with players who refuse to follow coaches instructions!

Trouble is, it still comes back to Smith. One of the big guns that played like crap for most of the year was Daniel Wagon. Who was one of the first players Smith re-signed? Daniel Wagon.

In the end, it all comes down to Smith

 

[The Colonel]

Trouble is, it still comes back to Smith. One of the big guns that played like crap for most of the year was Daniel Wagon. Who was one of the first players Smith re-signed? Daniel Wagon.

Well judging by the Ken Thornett award it was Daniel that took it out and this was voted for by the players - obviously to the standards of many he didn't play well whereas to those that matter the most ie his teammates he did.

Mind you I do agree that Wagon did not have an spectacular year - had a few players been there all year like him the awards may have been different.

Hodgson, Richards, Boyd, Irvine, Wheeler, Green, Hollingsworth etc didn't have exceptional years and have been released by the club so while there haven't been mass sackings there has been a fairly substantial turnover.

 

[eloquentEEL]

Misty, let me ask you this. I know you have children. If one of them misbehaves or does something stupid, do you take full responsibility?

 

[Misty Bee]

Trouble is, it still comes back to Smith. One of the big guns that played like crap for most of the year was Daniel Wagon. Who was one of the first players Smith re-signed? Daniel Wagon.

Well judging by the Ken Thornett award it was Daniel that took it out and this was voted for by the players - obviously to the standards of many he didn't play well whereas to those that matter the most ie his teammates he did.

Mind you I do agree that Wagon did not have an spectacular year - had a few players been there all year like him the awards may have been different.

Hodgson, Richards, Boyd, Irvine, Wheeler, Green, Hollingsworth etc didn't have exceptional years and have been released by the club so while there haven't been mass sackings there has been a fairly substantial turnover.

What was that? Voted by his mates?

 

[Misty Bee]

Misty, let me ask you this. I know you have children. If one of them misbehaves or does something stupid, do you take full responsibility?

Legally, until they turn 18, I do.

 

[The Colonel]

Its the annual players player award - voted on yes by his mates. Maybe if Hindmarsh, Cayless and so on played a full year it would have been different however in their eyes he must have played well or they wouldn't have voted for him.

Personally I feel he could have played better however there are small things that players pick up on that we may well miss.

 

[Misty Bee]

Point taken, but in these things it is unlikel;y that the new boys would have gotten many votes.

Can you seriously say that Wagon had a better season than Morris or Hopkins? Or Witt?

 

[half]

wagon had an abysmal season, even by his own standards

his one saving grace, strong one-on-one defense, wasn't there this year

 

[Twizzle]

Its the annual players player award - voted on yes by his mates. Maybe if Hindmarsh, Cayless and so on played a full year it would have been different .

It would have been very different

 

[The Colonel]

Point taken, but in these things it is unlikel;y that the new boys would have gotten many votes.

Can you seriously say that Wagon had a better season than Morris or Hopkins? Or Witt?

Didn't think he had a better season than either three - would have liked to see the votes and where these three appeared as well. However it could well have come down to one or two votes during the games? It is fairly relative in many of these situations especialy as the could have voted on a particular moment in the game or the whole game.

 

[eloquentEEL]

Misty, let me ask you this. I know you have children. If one of them misbehaves or does something stupid, do you take full responsibility?

Legally, until they turn 18, I do.

so you're happy to cop the punishment if they commit a crime?

 

[Suitman]

Misty, let me ask you this. I know you have children. If one of them misbehaves or does something stupid, do you take full responsibility?

Legally, until they turn 18, I do.

so you're happy to cop the punishment if they commit a crime?

e2e,

How about looking at it this way.

If a multi national company's profits dive after boasting a previous record, and then continue to dive the year after, and shareholders are calling for blood, who's head would be on the chopping block??

Suity

 

[Misty Bee]

Misty, let me ask you this. I know you have children. If one of them misbehaves or does something stupid, do you take full responsibility?

Legally, until they turn 18, I do.

so you're happy to cop the punishment if they commit a crime?

Well, if I was the type of person who would sack my kids and see 'em all run off to different parents in Caberra, Auckland, and, god forbid, MANLY, I would DESERVE to be punished!!!!!!

 

[eloquentEEL]

Misty, let me ask you this. I know you have children. If one of them misbehaves or does something stupid, do you take full responsibility?

Legally, until they turn 18, I do.

so you're happy to cop the punishment if they commit a crime?

e2e,

How about looking at it this way.

If a multi national company's profits dive after boasting a previous record, and then continue to dive the year after, and shareholders are calling for blood, who's head would be on the chopping block??

Suity

fair point. but the question is, are the shareholders justified, or are there outside forces (economy/market conditions) out of the company's control?

eg. if i took a risk in a dot.com stock, i could hardly blame the CEO for the dot.com bubble bursting.

you have to remember that the Eels season could have been very very different based on only a few seconds of football. i feel Smith gave them every opportunity to have changed their season (even with the outside influences), and had they made the finals, i still feel that Smith gave them every opportunity to go quite far. obviously, he's not perfect, but i still feel, all things considered, that he's our best shot for 2004.

in terms of form slumps / confidence slumps of players at other clubs, what have other coaches done that's so amazing?

 

[Misty Bee]

And Canberra could have been grand finalists if only for a few seconds of football.Even Souths, who lost god knows how many close games, could be semi finalists with ouly a few more fortunate moments.

The point is the we DIDN'T make it, becauswe of many more moments of HORRENDOUS football! That bad far outweighed the good.


And for those who assert that we finished strong, did you count the 50 point loss to Melbourne and the 40 point loss to Penrith?