The Elliot Poll

[greeneyed]

Tim Sheens won us 3 Premierships. Matt Elliott was not even close. We have only had one other coach since Tim Sheens. This doesn't put Elliott in a very good light so far. He did "well" in 2003, but the bottom line is it is not up to our high standards of success.

 

[Kris_man]

We're more successful under Elliott than we have been under anyone, since Tim Sheens was here.

Elliott a better coach than Mal Meninga - that really doesn't say much! :lol: :|

 

[greeneyed]

We now actually have someone who thinks that finishing 11th is acceptable... #-o

 

[raiders_boy]

Tim Sheens won us 3 Premierships. Matt Elliott was not even close. We have only had one other coach since Tim Sheens. This doesn't put Elliott in a very good light so far. He did "well" in 2003, but the bottom line is it is not up to our high standards of success.

How can you say we have a high standard of success? I understand that all raiders fans want us to win a premiership, but it has now been 10 seasons since we have done that. That doesn't exactly mean we have a high standard of success... We all have very high expectations, but the fact remains, that we have no Meninga, Daley, Stuart, Clyde etc etc. It is extremely hard to live up to those expectations.

Winning a premiership is not an easy thing to do... coming close is a good effort. Maybe not good enough for some, but still respectable. I appreciate that we havent even been close for a long time, but all this talk about the Raiders not living up to their high standard of success is crap IMO, because all thats happening is that theyre not living up to some fans' standards of success, just because we won a premiership 10 years ago.

 

[raiders_boy]

We now actually have someone who thinks that finishing 11th is acceptable... #-o

At least they won't tell us who it was... Deep down I dont think that they really think that.

 

[greeneyed]

We won 3 Premierships... in 1989, 1990 and 1994 and made Grand Finals in 1987 and 1991. We made our first Grand Final in our 7th year of existence. We have been close to Grand Finals in other years eg 1993 and 1997. This is by any standard, a successful club, historically. We have indeed, not been successful recently. THIS IS MY PROBLEM.

Successful clubs like the Broncos, Bulldogs etc are always up there and win a Premiership every few years or so. For people to think we aren't, not even our SUPPORTERS... makes me very sad indeed.

 

[raiders_boy]

Successful clubs like the Broncos, Bulldogs etc are always up there and win a Premiership every few years or so. For people to think we aren't, not even our SUPPORTERS... makes me very sad indeed.

If this is referring to me, then thats not right...

I never disputed that we were a successful club, and a proud one at that. What I did dispute, is that we have a high standard of success. We may have had a high standard of success 10 years ago, but since then, I hate to say it , but we haven't been a succsessful club at all...

You say that it makes u sad that supporters dont think we are a successful club, yet you have pointed out that in recent times, we have been far from successful.

THIS is what saddens me.

 

[Kris_man]

there's no doubt we've gone off the boil - once upon a time, teams would shit themselves having to play us, whereas now, it's reasonable to think that every other team in the comp sees the Raiders as a "should win" game. We once were truly the Mad and Mean Green Machine. i yearn for those days...(sorry for the sentimentality, there's this Shannon Noll "What About Me" special on )

 

[Chippo Raiders]

11th would have me questioning BUT that also depends on the buys for 2006 as well, since all that stuff is done July, August I will know where I stand by the end

 

[sydraider]

I think to be able to justify his tenure, elliot would not want to finish any lower than 6th position. I can handle 6th at the lowest and i can also handle bowing out one game shy of the big one, this would mean we have actually won a semi or 2 and would put us in a good position for 2006.
Not winning a semi for the last few times we have qualified has had a really adverse affect on the team and the culture, i think if we can change that, we will be well on our way to glory.
Front row has me worried though, hopefully feilden will be coming.

 

[Bay56]

Interesting to not that the option "Results wont matter, i think he is good" is running so well .... so the welfare of the coach is more important than the Raiders RL Football Club ..... what a culture we're developing at this club ehh .... yep, I'll stay a nego thanks.

 

[Raider Azz]

Interesting to not that the option "Results wont matter, i think he is good" is running so well .... so the welfare of the coach is more important than the Raiders RL Football Club ..... what a culture we're developing at this club ehh .... yep, I'll stay a nego thanks.

I'd like to admit that I voted that option just to tick you off Bay :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[hrundi99]

I think we should be aiming for top 6 with at least one finals win.

We have a new team makeup and it may take some time to gel, so a top 8 spot may be the result. That's why I chose "9th or worse".

Let's hope it gels before we throw away too many points.

 

[Bay56]

Interesting to not that the option "Results wont matter, i think he is good" is running so well .... so the welfare of the coach is more important than the Raiders RL Football Club ..... what a culture we're developing at this club ehh .... yep, I'll stay a nego thanks.

I'd like to admit that I voted that option just to tick you off Bay :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm ticked off Azz :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[lotm]

i voted for 10th or lower, but don't judge that at face value. i'll outline my reasons for doing so. firstly, 10th is the absolute lowest that i'd accept. that's taking into consideration all foreseeable and unforeseeable circumstances (i.e. injury). if a large portion of the regular fg squad is injured, i don't think it'd be fair to immediately judge elliot by the team's performances.

it's unreasonable to summarise the performance of a sporting team over 26 weeks by the table position anyway. however, for the sake of argument, i'd be disappointed if we didn't make the top 6 in 2005 and higher in 06.

teams i think we should be above in 2005:
- tigers
- warriors
- sharks
- parramatta
- eagles
- souths

teams we will be fighting amongst for bottom-middle of the 8 positions:
- cowboys
- newcastle
- panthers

teams i think will probably be above us:
- bulldogs
- storm
- broncos
- dragons
- roosters

i'd expect we'd likely finish anywhere between 6 and 9.

 

[greeneyed]

What worries me is that 19 people think it would be acceptable, in terms of making judgements on the coach, to miss the final 8...... I repeat the final 8, which has been widely regarded as allowing undeserving teams into the semis........ OR they don't care if we make the semis.

With complacency like this amongst the supporters, we deserve to be an unsuccessful club.

 

[Kris_man]

but greeneyed, any old idiot. such as a Tigers fan, can come in here and vote just to piss us off.

 

[greeneyed]

Point taken, but I suspect the vast majority of voters are Raiders fans...

 

[Raider_69]

teams i think we should be above in 2005:
- tigers
- warriors
- sharks
- parramatta
- eagles
- souths

teams we will be fighting amongst for bottom-middle of the 8 positions:
- cowboys
- newcastle
- panthers

teams i think will probably be above us:
- bulldogs
- storm
- broncos
- dragons
- roosters

i'd expect we'd likely finish anywhere between 6 and 9.

Id agree with that, except i dont think the storm's pack will be as good hence id ad them to the 'fighting amongst' and the dragons as per every year could be great and potential minor premiers or may off so they are another iffy.

 

[Bay56]

lotm .... imo Parra, the Warriors, Tigers and Eagles are going to be far more formidable or consistent performers that they were in '04. We are therefore going to have to be at out absolute best to achieve a better result than '04.