Wayne Bennett: In or Out?

[MatthewWoody]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

The results of this poll are certainly very conclusive. RFL please take note.

If the authorities were to do what this forum wants, Tonga would never beat a tier 1 nation and the World Cup would be an affair between Aus, NZ, Eng, France and Wales. 

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, MatthewWoody said:

If the authorities were to do what this forum wants, Tonga would never beat a tier 1 nation and the World Cup would be an affair between Aus, NZ, Eng, France and Wales. 

That is not reflective of the majority of this forum at all.

[Lowdesert]

2 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

This is the thing we have to address. Why dont we have anyone as good at kicking as Cronk, it isnt just down to numbers. Its down to scouting, training, development, its down to philosophy at youth level, its down to how we bring players through the levels. Its about the sorting hat we put players through at really young ages that sticks relatively big lads in the forwards, relatively small lads in the backs, its about a commitment to full size 13 a side RL that sees lads at 8,9,10,11,12,13 fall out of love with the game because they spend 75minutes stuck on the wing getting no ball and the rest of the game getting smashed by kids twice their weight. Its about the lack of facilities that make RL clubs a nice place to spend time, its about the parents and coaches screaming on the sidelines. 

Then when we get to pro level its about how only a few clubs actually invest in youth development, its about them going from youth age RL to an atrocious standard of reserves or the half-assed not fully committed to feeder system that DR was, its about how on earth does a young half actually get a game? How do they get time and space to develop when you cant really afford to trust them for 80mins a game 30times a year and you can't afford to have a good halfs cap space sat in the stands. Its about how the SC means we prize utility of specialism

There are huge number of things that are within our control that we don't do well, dont invest in, dont really see the point in, and often just pay lip service. We need a radical commitment to change these things, at the expense of how things were, at the expense of some other things, and at a financial cost. 

To many queries to answer there mate.  What’s a pro club to do if the lad they thought was going to be good, doesn’t apply himself or the big lad doesn’t get bigger?  

Getting kids playing sport more at schools and enjoying themselves is a start.  

 

[Lowdesert]

3 hours ago, Damien said:

I'm not really sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing but you are backing up my point.

In 1978 Great Britain lost the series 2 v 1 but at the same time Widnes and Warrington both beat Australia, Wales weren't far off only losing 3-8. France also won their series against the Aussies 2-0. In 1982 we were getting stuffed by the Invincibles, then in 1986 by the Unbeatables and this has largely been the case since.

Australia did not make this leap by copying what we did, they made giant strides by copying from elsewhere. Since the 1980's we have been doing nothing but trying to ape Australia. The game in the UK needs to develop a whole game approach to develop going forward, improve the foundations and it needs to copy from all sports when doing so. We will never beat Australia consistently by just blindly copying what they do and trying to play them at their own game. A game they play week in, week out to a much higher standard than what we do.

What I am saying is that we relied on what we had, never looked to the future and just carried on.  Australia made things happen.

One thing I have always thought was how Australia were better in the tackle one on one.  I’ve no doubt that stats might not show that, but that’s how it seemed to me and this was one observation which eventually leads to us having too many in the tackle and open to overload in attack.  

But that will be down to the strength of their competition and that is twofold.  The League (or Ladder) and competition for places in each team.  Miss tackles regularly, or a killer pass, dropped ball and someone’s in to take their chance. We don’t have that yet.

[Lowdesert]

2 hours ago, DavidM said:

Yeh I think it was . Looks a long way off at present though . As of now I’d say odds against him getting there 

Might be an interesting bet.  I doubt any press or social media will bother him one jot David.  As drab as it was, it wasn’t a rout and could’ve quite easily been won.

[RayCee]

4 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Theres a whole heap of things we need to do.

Getting kids playing the sport more at schools and enjoying them is absolutely one of them.

Getting them to play formats is the game that are less focused on 'giving it to the big lad' is another.

Exactly. However, while we have a 10 metre defensive line its going to be the way it’s played.

[Damien]

8 minutes ago, RayCee said:

Exactly. However, while we have a 10 metre defensive line its going to be the way it’s played.

In days of yesteryear it was the same even with a 5 metre defensive line. It does no one any favours, not even the superstar 12 year old big lad who then disappears without a trace because he has few core skills. The big lad needs to be removed from the equation by playing with people closer to his size.

[Lowdesert]

15 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

Theres a whole heap of things we need to do.

Getting kids playing the sport more at schools and enjoying them is absolutely one of them.

Getting them to play formats is the game that are less focused on 'giving it to the big lad' is another.

Have Modified games finished now?

[Lowdesert]

4 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

They arent pushed the way they are with the NRL, they are treated as a poor facsimile of the proper game

What about Sky try?

The ‘big lad, or lass’ is not an easy answer.  Even for forum experts.  A big lad at 10, is still 10 years old in other developments.  Yes, put them in with another age group but even 1 year, in the formative years, can have an adverse effect on a kid.

What do you do, if you have a big lad in your team who is a good player?  Give him away, limit time on the pitch, make him pass every time etc etc.  Not so easy.

[Oliver Clothesoff]

I’m not sure Wane is a good fit Internationally. He blooded youngsters when there were injuries at Wigan but how that translates to an International role, I’m not sure. 

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

Compared to what the NRL are doing? No way

And other formats can be one answer, 9s, touch, tag rugby a faster game runs him out of it, a less contact game makes size and power irrelevant.

A better coaching philosophy is another answer. Have the run set plays. Stick him in the halves and improve his core skills.

We cant play give it to the big lad and finish with an up n under ar youth level.then wonder why 17,18,19 year old halves are having to learn how to kick and put people through gaps. 

No ones suggesting ‘give it to the big lad’, only you.  I’m saying that enabling the ‘lad’ to play and enjoy the game, even when he’s exceptionally big for his age, is not an easy solution.

A better coaching philosophy is obviously the answer and there are counter arguments, with credibility, for every suggestion.

Aussie youth have more players.  Just that alone negates Leagues going up in 2 yearly increments.  They split the Leagues beforehand, based on the previous year, to even sides up.  They still have ‘big lads’ running the show in some games.

[Dunbar]

Just a little reminder of what can happen when we don't have a coach who is prepared to fight battles for us on the international stage and who prefers to make us 'difficult to beat' as a first priority.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/2124598.stm

 

[Damien]

10 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Just a little reminder of what can happen when we don't have a coach who is prepared to fight battles for us on the international stage and who prefers to make us 'difficult to beat' as a first priority.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/2124598.stm

 

I'm not really sure the point. That game merely showed the folly of scheduling a one off mid season test in Australia against Australia with no preparation. The year before we had actually beaten Australia and the following year we lost a 3 match series against Australia with less than 6 points difference in all 3 games.

[Dunbar]

Just now, Damien said:

I'm not really sure the point. That game merely showed the folly of scheduling a one off mid season test in Australia against Australia with no preparation. The following year we lost a 3 match series against Australia with less than 6 points difference in all 3 games.

The point is that we did actually schedule that game didn't we.  Bennett doesn't do 'folly' and he would not have agreed to this game being played.

There have been some massive mistakes made by the people who administrate our sports international team and then some massive mistakes made by those who coach our national team.

If we are so far behind the NRL as people are happy to say we are then we are actually performing above expectations at the moment. Remove Bennett and we could easily go backwards very quickly.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

The following year we lost a 3 match series against Australia with less than 6 points difference in all 3 games.

Yes but that touring team was missing several star players and we should've won all 3 games!

The David Waite era was thoroughly uninspiring and depressing. There are a lot of parallels that can be drawn with that era. Not least the fact that David Waite and Wayne Bennett obviously have lots of positive qualities, as people in the know speak very highly of them. However, when it comes to international footy - the highest level of the game - then a winning record becomes the single most important barometer of their success IMO.

[Damien]

Just now, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

Yes but that touring team was missing several star players and we should've won all 3 games!

The David Waite era was thoroughly uninspiring and depressing. There are a lot of parallels that can be drawn with that era. Not least the fact that David Waite and Wayne Bennett obviously have lots of positive qualities, as people in the know speak very highly of them. However, when it comes to international footy - the highest level of the game - then a winning record becomes the single most important barometer of their success IMO.

The year before we beat them, was that team missing several stars too? We beat them 2 years later, was that Australian team missing several stars?

How many times have we beaten Australia under Bennett?

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

52 minutes ago, Damien said:

The year before we beat them, was that team missing several stars too? We beat them 2 years later, was that Australian team missing several stars?

How many times have we beaten Australia under Bennett?

The year before we caught them cold in the 1st Test because they played no warm up games (the series was up in the air due to 9/11 and ended up being truncated if memory serves). Then in the 2nd Test everyone was saying that Waite would need to change his tactics if we expected to beat them again. He didn't and we didn't. It was one of the most depressing international defeats I've been to (and there's been a few). We got soundly beaten in the 3rd Test as well. By the 2004 Tri Nations, Noble was the Head Coach. Whilst we managed to beat them in the round robin, we got absolutely pulverised in the final...

It isn't just the odd win here or there - for me it's the manner of the performances. Too many coaches rely on error free rugby and completion rates, but you need to take some risks to try and win these games. Especially if man for man the opposition are equal or superior. Mal Reilly's teams played far more inspiring and enterprising rugby than David Waite's ever did.

[Damien]

8 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

The year before we caught them cold in the 1st Test because they played no warm up games (the series was up in the air due to 9/11 and ended up being truncated if memory serves). Then in the 2nd Test everyone was saying that Waite would need to change his tactics if we expected to beat them again. He didn't and we didn't. It was one of the most depressing international defeats I've been to (and there's been a few). We got soundly beaten in the 3rd Test as well. By the 2004 Tri Nations, Noble was the Head Coach. Whilst we managed to beat them in the round robin, we got absolutely pulverised in the final...

It isn't just the odd win here or there - for me it's the manner of the performances. Too many coaches rely on error free rugby and completion rates, but you need to take some risks to try and win these games. Especially if man for man the opposition are equal or superior. Mal Reilly's teams played far more inspiring and enterprising rugby than David Waite's ever did.

Can you please read this debate from the top of the page again because after wading in and making excuses as to why GB won or was close in any match you are now arguing against the very point I disagreed with in the first place.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

41 minutes ago, Damien said:

Can you please read this debate from the top of the page again because after wading in and making excuses as to why GB won or was close in any match you are now arguing against the very point I disagreed with in the first place.

I'm not arguing against anything. I've just answered your questions and then added an observation!

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, Dunbar said:

The point is that we did actually schedule that game didn't we.  Bennett doesn't do 'folly' and he would not have agreed to this game being played.

There have been some massive mistakes made by the people who administrate our sports international team and then some massive mistakes made by those who coach our national team.

If we are so far behind the NRL as people are happy to say we are then we are actually performing above expectations at the moment. Remove Bennett and we could easily go backwards very quickly.

Alternatively we could drastically improve, even to those who value Bennett's involvement as seemingly you do, the evidence is there for all to see that we are playing a brand of football that is dour, unimaginative and downright boring.

The representative national team of the RFL whichever the name it plays under is supposedly the pinnacle of our game, it is the results and the manner of how they play the game that is judged globally, and our present way under Wayne Bennett is winning no admiration from anywhere.

We have something that can be fixed, but to all appearances not by the present operator, he is not even producing results with his conservatism and questionable selections, it may be that a newcomer may still lose games but unless we try and replace Bennett we will never know. 

I for one will not be going out of my way to pay to watch another Bennett coached team next year, I pay to be entertained and enjoy the game, sadly something I find missing from Bennett's England/GB teams.

[Dunbar]

8 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Alternatively we could drastically improve, even to those who value Bennett's involvement as seemingly you do, the evidence is there for all to see that we are playing a brand of football that is dour, unimaginative and downright boring.

The representative national team of the RFL whichever the name it plays under is supposedly the pinnacle of our game, it is the results and the manner of how they play the game that is judged globally, and our present way under Wayne Bennett is winning no admiration from anywhere.

We have something that can be fixed, but to all appearances not by the present operator, he is not even producing results with his conservatism and questionable selections, it may be that a newcomer may still lose games but unless we try and replace Bennett we will never know. 

I for one will not be going out of my way to pay to watch another Bennett coached team next year, I pay to be entertained and enjoy the game, sadly something I find missing from Bennett's England/GB teams.

I don't particularly value Bennett's contribution.  I would have preferred an English/British coach in the first instance anyway. And some of his selections have been questionable and his tactics are absolutely sterile. 

I am just pointing out that change can be positive or negative depending on the consequence and up to these last two games in think that the appointment of Bennett has been justified results wise.

I haven't actually voted in the poll yet as I can't make up my mind.

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

4 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Just a little reminder of what can happen when we don't have a coach who is prepared to fight battles for us on the international stage and who prefers to make us 'difficult to beat' as a first priority.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/2124598.stm

 

Karl Pratt a GB winger, Paul Wellens at centre, Stuart Fielden 2nd row

We face some similar problems on this tour 

[Denton Rovers RLFC]

On 02/11/2019 at 10:06, The Hallucinating Goose said:

Oh christ, am I gonna have to dig out that box of 'Radford out' t-shirts I had printed up and cross out the name now?? 

I thought you'd have the left over Agar/Lloyd out ones to use up first?

[The Hallucinating Goose]

21 minutes ago, Denton Rovers RLFC said:

I thought you'd have the left over Agar/Lloyd out ones to use up first?

Nah, I managed to shift them one Christmas when I cut the price down to £10. Only sold a couple when I was charging £50.