Under fire: Knights fans unload on Danny Wicks

[BG]

He has had the same selection criteria all year and when we are winning no one seems to have a massive problem with it (comments are made, but nothing like this week). We get belted by undoubtedly the form team of the competition and now we are calling for blood?

Smith is not arrogant. He is defending his team in the local media. What do you expect him to say? He had to make some comment given the amount of comment made on the Herald website. Robert Dillion obviously said something to Smith - what was he going to say?

The team is a work in progress. Be thankful we don't have the team of old - under the old ethos - who couldn't win without Andrew Johns, because we would be running dead last.

 

[BG]

One day when I own an NRL team, I'm going to allow season ticket holders, shareholders and club members to vote on the selection of the team week in week out. It will be a special website section available only to members, who between Tuesday 8am and 1pm will vote in the 17 players. And I'm serious.

It would be very popular. Until the end of the first season when the team picked up the wooden spoon.

Now just to play along, if you were to do it professionally, it would only be available to members who watch dozens of hours of video a week and have attended training courses in the finer points of sliding defence, ruck techniques and other subtle off-the-ball technicalities. Then everything would become boring because everyone would understand why NRL coaches make most of the decisions that they do. Admittedly the enigmas would never occur but this will have varying results. It would be bad news for someone like Wicks. But it would also have been bad news for Moimoi. And I doubt a consensus--even among well-informed people--would have seen Gids switched to fullback.

 

[Karmawave]

No BG, you lose the point.

The coaching staff and training staff would be in direct responsibility for recruiting the players, and the positions they can play.

So you might have 4 winger options, where you vote for only 2. If Coach doesn't want Player X to play wing, then you will not be able to vote for that player in that position. Only the positions they are eligible for as named by the coach.

You can only vote for the players as listed as available for their respective position by the coaching staff.

It has a few downsides, but it sure would be original in the NRL, and the coaching staff can have much more control over it than it may seem.

E.g. Like if the coach truly feels Uate isn't ready, he wouldn't have even been a voting option.

 

[Burwood]

If I was coach of that team I'd list Uate, Vuna, Ciraldo and Taufua as the options on the wings, and Cross, Royal, McManus and Lulia as the front row options.

 

[Karmawave]

If I was coach of that team I'd list Uate, Vuna, Ciraldo and Taufua as the options on the wings, and Cross, Royal, McManus and Lulia as the front row options.

Within reason of course. Any coach employed would have to follow the clubs rules, or p*ss off.

 

[Adsy]

No BG, you lose the point.

The coaching staff and training staff would be in direct responsibility for recruiting the players, and the positions they can play.

So you might have 4 winger options, where you vote for only 2. If Coach doesn't want Player X to play wing, then you will not be able to vote for that player in that position. Only the positions they are eligible for as named by the coach.

You can only vote for the players as listed as available for their respective position by the coaching staff.

It has a few downsides, but it sure would be original in the NRL, and the coaching staff can have much more control over it than it may seem.

E.g. Like if the coach truly feels Uate isn't ready, he wouldn't have even been a voting option.

I actually had this thought a while ago regarding bench spots.

I was thinknig it would be refreshing if say the coach named 5 bench spots (like we have for this weekend) and then the members of the club got to vote which 4 out of the 5 fill the bench spot with each person only getting to vote for one player.

This in reality would still see someone like Wicks get a game but it would make the members feel a whole lot more important and responsible for the teams sucess with not much changing to the line up.

 

[Burwood]

Within reason of course. Any coach employed would have to follow the clubs rules, or p*ss off.

Then you'd attract the quality of Hagan ;-)

 

[Karmawave]

Then you'd attract the quality of Hagan ;-)

Money talks. Coaches like to be cutting edge after all...

I mean it's not that hard to do you know, while keeping it legit and realistic.

 

[Burwood]

Money talks. Coaches like to be cutting edge after all...

I mean it's not that hard to do you know, while keeping it legit and realistic.

And they also like to pick their own team and not hand control over to a bunch of amateurs.

Wasn't there a reality TV show a few years back where some 3rd grade Victorian AFL club let the audience vote on team selections each week?

 

[Burwood]

The Club

 

[Adsy]

The Club

They won the comp. Classic.

 

[BG]

You can only vote for the players as listed as available for their respective position by the coaching staff. It has a few downsides, but it sure would be original in the NRL, and the coaching staff can have much more control over it than it may seem. E.g. Like if the coach truly feels Uate isn't ready, he wouldn't have even been a voting option.

Karma, in all seriousness the downsides are too massive to take this seriously. You are more or less talking about having a vote on the fifty-fifty positions. If you want success it's absolutely vital that an experienced coach with some assistant staff take responsibility for those. The reasons are numerous but mostly involve information that won't be available to everyone. The public won't always be aware of whether players are carrying niggling injuries, have personal issues, what their attitude to training has been like in the past couple of weeks. There are good reasons why clubs try and be as coy as possible about these things.

Moreover, in situations where one player isn't obviously superior to another, team selections are often based around team tactics. The coaching staff are the ones who have to formulate these and decide which players best fit the mould. If the coaching staff don't have complete authority they can't be held fully responsible for a team's performance and that's a massive issue.

 

[cram]

I have no problems with him picking the team thats his job. If he has been quoted correctly, I think he had a very poor choice of words.

I for one have made little if any comment about team selections however, I find his comments offensive.

For me I am not faceless and would be happy to repeat any comments I make on hereto his face and anyone else from the Knights that wants to be there.

Based on his comments anyone that writes a letter to the editor or makes comments on the radio is faceless and should be dismissed.

For someone who is supposed to have intelligence and comes from a teaching background he would do well to choose his words a little more carefully.

 

[otori]

Well he has to defend his position on Wicks somehow so he criticised the form of communication the critics are using. He can't exactly use the facts to defend his stance.

 

[BG]

I for one have made little if any comment about team selections however, I find his comments offensive. For me I am not faceless

On an internet forum you are, and that's what I believe Smith was talking about. I agree he could have been more tactful with his choice of words. But I can also appreciate the frustration of being open to a rant from anyone, who however much they may be misinformed or acting from ulterior motives, can hide behind an alias.

 

[cram]

On an internet forum you are, and that's what I believe Smith was talking about. I agree he could have been more tactful with his choice of words. But I can also appreciate the frustration of being open to a rant from anyone, who however much they may be misinformed or acting from ulterior motives, can hide behind an alias.

Not always, there are ways of tracking people back to their computers if it needs to happen. In any forum, letters to the editor etc there is always the possibility of you being able to hide your true identity.

Frustration and criticisim comes with being a first grade coach and in fact I don't recall him having too much to say about the journos who caned him last year and they were very identifiable.

In fact I think the comments have hit a raw nerve for Smithy. He payed overs for a bloke who is not performing and he is desperate to be proven write and I hope he is. At present the jury is well and truly out.

 

[BG]

He dismissed the journos last year with similarly succinct remarks--"sections of the media with agendas" and so forth.

As I said I agree Smith's words weren't too tactful but I feel the bigger problem lies with weak journalism. All the article says is that there were criticisms about Wicks being selected ahead of White. Those criticisms could have come from Clint Newton and Josh Perry.

It would have been better to confront Smith with a summary of what the more in-depth posts have to say about the issue. Eg. "There has been a lot of discussion on internet forums about the fact that Wicks seems overweight and the stats show that he misses almost as many tackles as he makes." Then Smith would have had to respond to specific criticisms instead of just commenting on whether he is affected by being anonymously bad-mouthed.

 

[cram]

He dismissed the journos last year with similarly succinct remarks--"sections of the media with agendas" and so forth.

As I said I agree Smith's words weren't too tactful but I feel the bigger problem lies with weak journalism. All the article says is that there were criticisms about Wicks being selected ahead of White. Those criticisms could have come from Clint Newton and Josh Perry.

It would have been better to confront Smith with a summary of what the more in-depth posts have to say about the issue. Eg. "There has been a lot of discussion on internet forums about the fact that Wicks seems overweight and the stats show that he misses almost as many tackles as he makes." Then Smith would have had to respond to specific criticisms instead of just commenting on whether he is affected by being anonymously bad-mouthed.

Fair point, however Smith is responsible for his comments. He made them. He could have been asked different questions but he could also have answered differently a simple, "I have nothing to say in response to opinions made on the internet." End of story.

Anyway I have no argument with you on this, your points are well made and noted.

 

[BG]

Fair point, however Smith is responsible for his comments. He made them. He could have been asked different questions but he could also have answered differently a simple, "I have nothing to say in response to opinions made on the internet." End of story.

Anyway I have no argument with you on this, your points are well made and noted.

All good, mate. I think we basically agree. I just feel that a couple of short sharp replies by Smith to provocative questions aren't that big a deal--however tactless. I understand why you feel otherwise. Your suggestion would have certainly been a more diplomatic response.

 

[KniGhTs BaTTLeR]

I wonder why Smith loves Wicks so much? I mean what has he done? Scored one 40 meter try in the dying seconds that had no baring on our season. White is a harder worker and is more effective same as Tafua maybe we should start baggin them and he will keep picking them.