garry schofield

[Lapsed Leeds Fan]

8 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

Whatever Schofield’s wild claims are this week, people are talking about them here and that’s, really, one of the key reasons he’ll be employed to do what he does. 

Have you read Garry's article which prompted this discussion in the first place? It has already been shown that there are no 'wild claims' in it. If you call a wild claim the fact that Garry happens to think that this wasn't the greatest grand final then so be it, but there are plenty of others who also agree with that statement. 

Plus the original poster tagged him as misery guts. If he's so miserable why is his article filled with words such as brilliant, really good, excellent, absorbing and strong. Some people on here clearly have a problem with Schofield and are really not shy in showing it, but the article which prompted this thread is being used to show something which simply hasn't happened.

[Oxford]

15 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I'm certainly not upset that people disagree with something that Garry writes. I'm happy for people to do that every week, if they want to.

But what I have tried to do here is defend Garry from some of the misinterpretations of what he wrote, as well as some of the more personal attacks on him.

A few more interventions like this wouldn't be too far wrong or wide of the mark.

Maybe not just for the famous ones though, eh?

To be honest I think Garry being ressurected on here mid-argument from another thread was interesting at least from the point of view of lending some credence to the "not a Classic" nonsense. Great forum fodder but really just "But a classic is when we have this not that ....."

I have no problem that Garry has views nor what they are generally but some of the views on modern players have been downright poor, but I'm not expecting respect or empathy either!

 

[Hela Wigmen]

4 minutes ago, Lapsed Leeds Fan said:

Have you read Garry's article which prompted this discussion in the first place? It has already been shown that there are no 'wild claims' in it. If you call a wild claim the fact that Garry happens to think that this wasn't the greatest grand final then so be it, but there are plenty of others who also agree with that statement. 

Plus the original poster tagged him as misery guts. If he's so miserable why is his article filled with words such as brilliant, really good, excellent, absorbing and strong. Some people on here clearly have a problem with Schofield and are really not shy in showing it, but the article which prompted this thread is being used to show something which simply hasn't happened.

No, I’ve not. I choose not to listen to or read anything Schofield writes or says anymore, I’ve listened to and read enough of such claims over the years. I’d rather read something or listen to someone whose not purposely trying to be controversial. 

I find it sad, having read this thread, that not even 48 hours after the Grand Final finished, Schofield chose to write he did (from what’s been posted here). With friends like that, ay?

[Lapsed Leeds Fan]

1 minute ago, Hela Wigmen said:

No, I’ve not. I choose not to listen to or read anything Schofield writes or says anymore, I’ve listened to and read enough of such claims over the years. I’d rather read something or listen to someone whose not purposely trying to be controversial. 

I find it sad, having read this thread, that not even 48 hours after the Grand Final finished, Schofield chose to write he did (from what’s been posted here). With friends like that, ay?

If you read the article you'll get a very different idea of how negative he's been about the grand final, but that's your choice.

However I do find it significant that most of the article's critics have drifted away from the discussion since the full text was made available online. It couldn't be that they were quick to criticise something they hadn't actually read by any chance?

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, Lapsed Leeds Fan said:

If you read the article you'll get a very different idea of how negative he's been about the grand final, but that's your choice.

However I do find it significant that most of the article's critics have drifted away from the discussion since the full text was made available online. It couldn't be that they were quick to criticise something they hadn't actually read by any chance?

I think your points are valid here LLF. I don't disagree much with what Schofield said here, although his point about needing clarification on why Saints didn't take the 2 points makes him seem a touch dumb.

His tone was probably a bit unnecessarily negative overall, but I made the point that there have been far better Grand Finals than this, even if not more dramatic.

[RigbyLuger]

7 hours ago, DC77 said:

RL needs more personalities. I’m baffled when people like Garry voice their opinion only to be hammered for doing so from various quarters. Brian McDermott is another one who is good value for an opinion. These people should be cherished.

All sport suffers from pundits who are afraid to have opinions in case they either upset someone or are wrong. I'm sure I've heard Schoey admit he's wrong a couple of times, probably through gritted teeth.

I learn more from him talk about the game than giggling panels on the BBC, for example.

[The Future is League]

11 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

You make some quite outrageous statements and then say it's best to leave it there.

If you want to claim to know more than Garry about the history of Rugby League, then come out from behind your forum identity and reveal who you are and then we can all make a judgement about your claim. If you happen to be Professor Tony Collins, for example, or Robert Gate, then I would accept your claim, but somehow I don't think you are.

And I'm fascinated to see that you somehow know what current and former international players think, as well as "the Rugby League community as a whole". I'd love to know how you have accumulated all that knowledge. I've been involved in Rugby League for most of my life, but I wouldn't think of making such a sweeping claim and I'm interested to know how you feel able to do so.

Of course I'm aware of the acrimony of some people on these boards towards Garry, but certainly not all, and probably not a majority. And in any case the people who post on messageboards frequently post because they are unhappy with some aspect of the game or some people within it, so I really don't think it's a representative sample.

And if there are people who apparently dislike Garry as much as you suggest, then I'm afraid it's their problem and not his.

Thanks for reminding me why i don't buy your publications anymore

[The Future is League]

2 hours ago, dkw said:

Do you have evidence that he is despised by players, and how many players exactly? Is it 100, is it 1? I've met him several times, often in the presence of other ex players and never once seen any animosity towards him, if anything it is completely the opposite. He is a loud mouth and is opinionated, I`m pretty sure even he would admit to that but that doesnt automatically mean its a bad thing. He is incredibly knowledgeable about the game and has a genuine love for RL, though this can see him wanting the game to be more like the "old days" of more open rugby, less formulaic etc. 

As for his coaching stint, are we now to ignore anyone opinion if they "failed" as a coach anytime? So basically almost every single coach the games seen then, how did your coaching in the game go?

Ask the players who played with him at club and international level

Ever wondered why he was not offered a top coaching job after a very fine career?

[Rupert Prince]

15 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think your points are valid here LLF. I don't disagree much with what Schofield said here, although his point about needing clarification on why Saints didn't take the 2 points makes him seem a touch dumb.

His tone was probably a bit unnecessarily negative overall, but I made the point that there have been far better Grand Finals than this, even if not more dramatic.

It was the first GF without scrums and with the 6 again rule.  The latter had little impact on penalties, they went to Wigan if they did, but the nature of the rucks might have had a difference.

The game was at speed, the game was intense (although not as much as the recent league game).  But it was repetitious.  Saints kicked better, but ultimately had little penetration.  Wigan moved the ball better I think when they had a chance, but did not quite complete enough. Their try was excellent, but were there many chances for that?   In this respect I think Schofield has a valid point.

[RigbyLuger]

13 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

Ever wondered why he was not offered a top coaching job after a very fine career?

Because he was a better player than a coach? 

Though, he seems to have been no less successful in off the field roles than Jamie Peacock, for example. Shall we slag him off as well?

[The Future is League]

15 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

Because he was a better player than a coach? 

Though, he seems to have been no less successful in off the field roles than Jamie Peacock, for example. Shall we slag him off as well?

Remind me how many coaching jobs has JP applied for?

Remind me how many articles JP has written openly berating the game?

JP writes a regular column for a national newspaper in the season. How many articles does schofield write for national newspapers?

[Dave T]

43 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

It was the first GF without scrums and with the 6 again rule.  The latter had little impact on penalties, they went to Wigan if they did, but the nature of the rucks might have had a difference.

The game was at speed, the game was intense (although not as much as the recent league game).  But it was repetitious.  Saints kicked better, but ultimately had little penetration.  Wigan moved the ball better I think when they had a chance, but did not quite complete enough. Their try was excellent, but were there many chances for that?   In this respect I think Schofield has a valid point.

My mate sent me a text during it, unkindly making the point that Steve Price had taken over Saints' attacking coaching for the Grand Final. 

[Rupert Prince]

21 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

Because he was a better player than a coach? 

Though, he seems to have been no less successful in off the field roles than Jamie Peacock, for example. Shall we slag him off as well?

I think you make a good point.  Was Wally Lewis a coach?  Certainly he was never regarded as a "top coach"... if he was, it didn't last for long.  Does say any Saints fan wanting to slag of Schoefield's coaching career wish to top Trump him with Cunningham?

[Rupert Prince]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

My mate sent me a text during it, unkindly making the point that Steve Price had taken over Saints' attacking coaching for the Grand Final. 

You made me think back to the kicks Saints put in which we, Wigan, genetally fielded. The little bit of bad luck Saints had was just missing a 40-20.  I suppose one bad fluke deserves a good one back!

[Martyn Sadler]

1 hour ago, The Future is League said:

Thanks for reminding me why i don't buy your publications anymore

I doubt whether you ever did, when you give such a churlish response.

[RigbyLuger]

24 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

I think you make a good point.  Was Wally Lewis a coach?  Certainly he was never regarded as a "top coach"... if he was, it didn't last for long.  Does say any Saints fan wanting to slag of Schoefield's coaching career wish to top Trump him with Cunningham?

I didn't see John Kear play, but he's obviously been a much better coach than a player. I'm not sure why some see being good at one means you have to be good at another.

You can imagine that if you're a talented player, and you just knew what to do, that trying to get those who can't do what you could would be frustrating.

I'd loved to have been OK at either!

[Harry Stottle]

39 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

I think you make a good point.  Was Wally Lewis a coach?  Certainly he was never regarded as a "top coach"... if he was, it didn't last for long.  Does say any Saints fan wanting to slag of Schoefield's coaching career wish to top Trump him with Cunningham?

Actually when I went in the '92 GB tour, a midweek game was against Tweed Head Seagulls/Gold Coast think they'd just changed their name but not sure, player coach was a certain Walter James Lewis.

 

[Eddie]

On 30/11/2020 at 17:28, Ramon Rojo said:

I watched Mr Schofield some time ago on that Forty 20 thing on You Tube. He seemed to be a popular member of the 4 man panel. I never took him to be talking twaddle.

Caught up with the more recent Forty 20 stuff and he's gone missing along with some other bloke who had a lot to say?

The panel is now down to  Phil Caplan and a large looking chap I have trouble in understanding?

Did Mr Schofield get his marching orders or just taking a break? 

Hey @Ramon Rojo, listen to the start of this weeks 40 20 Not Live podcast - you’re famous. 

[Ramon Rojo]

20 hours ago, Eddie said:

Hey @Ramon Rojo, listen to the start of this weeks 40 20 Not Live podcast - you’re famous. 

Thank you for the notification Eddie

The gentleman who mentioned me also reassured listeners that Mr Schofield shall be returning to the show

[Oxford]

22 hours ago, RigbyLuger said:

You can imagine that if you're a talented player, and you just knew what to do, that trying to get those who can't do what you could would be frustrating.

 

There's also a level of teaching quality & respect required that are far beyond the greater % of people.

And that level of frustration you describe is about the lack of empathy it takes to realise the player you're coaching isn't you.

It is also a product of having you head up your own orifice.

Speaking of which .....

3 minutes ago, Ramon Rojo said:

The gentleman who mentioned me also reassured listeners that Mr Schofield shall be returning to the show

Booooo! Booooooo! Booooooooooo!

 

 

[The Future is League]

9 hours ago, Oxford said:

 

There's also a level of teaching quality & respect required that are far beyond the greater % of people.

And that level of frustration you describe is about the lack of empathy it takes to realise the player you're coaching isn't you.

It is also a product of having you head up your own orifice.

Speaking of which .....

Booooo! Booooooo! Booooooooooo!

 

 

This years Super League grand final teams were coached by former internationals and Adrian Lam was a SOO player as well. 

Brian Noble, Brian McDermott and Shaun Wane were very successful coaches and former internationals. They appeared to get their messages over when it came to big match days

If you can get your message over in an intelligent way players will respond. If you can't players will regards you as a goose and wont respond

Trent Robinson and Craig Bellamy weren't international players or even SOO players, but they are intelligent people and get their messages over and look at their records in NRL grand finals.

Michael Maguire coached Wigan to great success and coached South Sydney to a Grand Final victory. Not a top player, but had the intelligence to get his message over and the players responded.

Wayne Bennett. Played for Australia, but not at international level and look at the success he's enjoyed as a coach.

The message is intelligent coaches get their messages over and are generally successful. The less intelligent coaches no matter what level they played at don't enjoy much success .

[Oxford]

Neither quality teachers nor good coaches are necessarily alligned with the characteristic of intelligence.

[The Future is League]

50 minutes ago, Oxford said:

Neither quality teachers nor good coaches are necessarily alligned with the characteristic of intelligence.

They are. They understand the rules to the finest points and now how far they can push the rules/

Dumb one's don't and they are failures as coaches