Honestly it is a tuff one I really liked some of Hanleys coaching style BUT he was out there with his selection and recruitment policy. You have a fair point though - possibly it was a toss up and I also think Symmonds was very unlucky with player retention and recruitment.
Lets just say you could swap them round and I wouldn't lose sleep.
incidently:
I was in the Black Horse having dinner during McRea's reign and he was on the next table complaining bitterly about his treatment and saying he was going to be canned. They didn't renew his contract signed a new coach and then he took us on a charge right up the table nearly won it if I remember.
In my opinion this isn't a fair comparison. I have no doubt in my mind if KC was in charge during the 2006 season then we would be saying he was the best coach ever.
likewise, if KC had half of the 2006 team available now then the results would be completely different.
the simple facts are that times have changed, our recruitment has been poor, but I like to believe that things will change, and I think KC can do it. a Few good signings will make a world of difference.
Its about time we all get behind the side instead of booing, we are better than that. I am as disappointed as everyone else, but booing the side isnt the answer, and certainly wont improve the confidence.
We all call the pie eaters doing the famous Wigan Walk, we are worse now booing our own team.
Yeah, I got the impression Hanley wasn't a particularly smart or technical coach, but he was authoritative and commanded respect, and he gave the squad the kick up the backside they needed at the time. I remember things feeling like they'd gotten out of hand in the latter half of McRae's tenure.
For me it was his view on some players. Left to him the Martyn would of been out and KC would of been replaced with pachinook ( no idea how you spell his name ) Not forgetting of course how awkward he was with the press and the board. We had some great players but without kc an tommy would the coaches who came after him have done so well ?
Inaccurate. One aspect of successful management is about using resources effectively, I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest Cunningham would be 'the best coach ever' if he was coaching in 2006.
The younger players at the club have plateaued or regressed alarmingly and not one of the established players has improved with sustained, better performances since he took over. The worst case in point is Walmsely: he's a shadow of the player he was.
In short the club are regressing. The recruitment (which KC admitted to having influenced) has been diabolical and those players already contracted to the club are poor.
Had Salford not had a whopping 6 point deduction we could be staring the prospect of a battle with a number of clubs to sustain a top 8 place. That is still a prospect, especially if Hull KR manage to beat Wigan.
eddie I disagree, but its all about opinions. You would never get the team of 2006 under the salary cap now, and the best aussies dont come over. We need to hope that a few of our home grown youngsters turn out to be as good as Wellens and Roby, only time will tell.
And for Walmsely, he has had a great few years, however he look tired and has had a few injures. Put him in the 2006 side along side Anderson, Maurie, Graham and Anderson and its a different story
I am not sure its KC fault that he has been injured and is suffering a bit with form. He had a decent year last year by the way........
as i said, all about opinions
Although I would still put Anderson at number 2, I think a lot of the bore fest that we witness in today's SL started with him. IIRC, he was the first to implement the wrestle and really focus on it. Nathan Brown and Michael Maguire took it from there.
Nobody can doubt what he won for this club and for that reason he'll always be up there.
I just wish there was a Millward M2 out there somewhere to bring back the entertainers tag.
Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but for me booing especially when KC was on the big screen just creates a negative atmosphere. I am not sure I would enjoying playing a LP at the moment.
you also have to consider the youngsters coming into the side, it does nothing for their confidence
I've always associated booing your own team at sport with thick people. Sadly no one has ever been able to string enough words together to make a complete sentence in order to argue against this assumption
No team has had a run of games with their best 13, that's the way it is, so relying on having no injuries in order to be half decent is not a realistic plan! You also neglect to mention that Wigan, Wire, Catalans, Leeds etc have all had serious injuries to key players this season. They could all argue that they could be better than at present as well. What you're hoping for is Saints having no injuries and everyone else still getting them. That indicates that we are not well placed to compete.
I'm cool with anyone backing Cunningham, but evidence suggests he is going to need more than a bit of luck with injuries to improve our fortunes.
Neither does blindly towing the line. Wide to west was not a one off , how about the last second try at Dire ? Last minute drop goals , many many passages of play in many a big game where we just went for it when other teams would have just rolled over or tried to grind out a result ?
The Millward-Anderson debate will always be interesting for me.
Daniel Anderson is generally considered the best but he did inherit a side that was cast iron favourites for honours. What he did was professionalise us and make us much more consistent. Whether that counted for a lot is debatable because the facts are that for all of his four top place finishes, we only won the Grand Final once. We lost a few big games under his tenure that you wouldn't have expected us to have and he was single handedly responsible for the 'death' of Saints rugby as we knew and loved.
Millward was almost the complete opposite. Now he did take charge of the best collection of Saints individuals I have seen back in 2000. Cunningham, Long, Martyn, Joynt and Sculthorpe were all at their peaks and there was Newlove, Iro, Sullivan, Hoppe, Nickle, Perelini and a few others. It had MUCH more talent than the 2006 side, the difference was that the 2006 side had five marauding props.
Millward got the most of us when it really mattered, yet things could go remarkably the other way too. I'm not quite sure how or why it was, but we could be brilliant on a level we've never seen before or since or bloody awful in a similar manner and it could happen from one week to the next. On that basis, you could say he was the great motivator, but given the talent at his disposal, maybe he was the great demotivator for some of those games. Only once did his team really let us down in the big game though and that was Murrayfield in 2002. Our judgement of him got clouded when it all ended and all sorts came out but, a decade later, we can forget that and go back to remembering the rugby, and bar that awful post Long-Gleeson collapse in 2004, there were some bloody great times in there.
Hanley - well he fine tuned a team tremendously well, but one that did largely have the tools there for him. You could say that he laid it on a plate for Millward but he clearly had some issues. I am assured that he DID want to swap Cunningham for Pachniuk and he certainly wanted Holroyd for Martyn. A great motivator who the players had utmost respect for, a good tactician, but clearly a few perforations short of a full tea bag.
McRae - Many will give him massive Kudos for starting the ball rolling in 1996, but Eric Hughes did that for me. Hughes built that team with a quality blend of youth and big money signings but maybe wasn't quite the coach to take them that step further. McRae fine tuned things but we'll never really know how much he had to do. Maybe it would have happened with Hughes. One thing I do know is that the club fell off the rails and he looked non-plussed for his last eighteen months. However, if he can't take much credit for 1996, I don't think he could take much blame when our uneven pay structure led to 13 transfer requests and a very unhappy bunch of players either.
Brown - Everybody gave him pelters but he knew he'd taken over a club on a downward spiral. Lots of injuries but he gave all the young lads a chance in turn and it reaped its reward the next year with a title win that you look back upon now as being a massive over-achievement. To win the title with a side as average as that says something about him and it was a crying shame that he left when he did.
Potter - Took the job on a hiding to nothing and in that dreadful year of 2009 when everybody stopped playing rugby en-masse. People blamed him for our dour rugby yet he joined us with a reputation of playing very expansive rugby with the Dragons, it was just the way the game had gone. Unfortunately, the times had changed, he tried to change to suit and it didn't really work. Twice he took us to Grand Finals though, so was he as bad as we remember?
Simmons - Less personality than Potter even and no improvement in terms of rugby and entertainment. In fact it went backwards but we still managed to pull it off (twice) against Wigan in the Play-Offs to blow yet another Final, one we arguably should have won. Paid the price for a dreadful start to the next season in a run that we've had worse since, but the incumbent has a statue so doesn't meet with the same end.
Rush/Cunningham - Remember the elation of those first two games when we played magnificent rugby in destroying Leeds and Warrington and then when the brand failed against Wigan, we got afraid, abandoned it and decided the 'grind' was the way. In 2012 we got better results from it though. probably because we had slightly better players. One for another thread perhaps, but that deadly duo's reign was where the rugby we see now first commenced and, whichever one of them you blame, the other certainly seemed happy enough to go with it - and that still remains the case. Whilst the dire tactics were 'simply doing as the Jones's did' back in 2012, these days, they are 'simply doing as the Jones's used to do before they realised things weren't working anymore and got back to playing rugby'.
THIS YEAR LENDING SUPPORT TO:- St. Helens RLFC, Manchester City, Celtic, Alemannia Aachen, Steps 1 to 6 Non-League Football
Remember speaking to a player who was at Salford who stated that McRae was easily the worst coach he played under and that his junior coach had more advanced coaching techniques compared to McRae who coaching style was very basic apparently.
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
I remember at the time people used to say that McRae was only concerned with set completion - nothing else. Just complete your sets and you'll win more often than not - quite a basic strategy
Which was actually what we did. I do remember being amazed at how little that team dropped the ball compared to its predecessors but, to be fair, the rugby wasn't compromised. We played great stuff, we played winning stuff and everthing stuck. We also fought to the end no matter what, in 1996 at least. It wasn't the best seventeen we ever had but it was most definitely the most enjoyable season. A sheer rollercoaster of emotions but a season that fulfilled everybody's dreams.
THIS YEAR LENDING SUPPORT TO:- St. Helens RLFC, Manchester City, Celtic, Alemannia Aachen, Steps 1 to 6 Non-League Football
That about Eric Hughes is right I always used to say before the super league that saints team is a good young team that is only going to get better ,Eric Hughes put them together , Mcrae was a lucky man taking them over and being given Paul Newlove.