Warrington solution

[graveyard johnny]

with michael maguire now a free agent could the wire solution be with him?

[Dallas Mead]

1 minute ago, graveyard johnny said:

with michael maguire now a free agent could the wire solution be with him?

Na.

[latchford albion]

10 hours ago, graveyard johnny said:

with michael maguire now a free agent could the wire solution be with him?

No 

[Scubby]

15 hours ago, Damien said:

Cooper to join Wigan next season. I can't say I'm too thrilled really, hope he didnt cost too much:

Mike Cooper to join Wigan - Wigan Warriors

Just like that!

Another player out of the door at Warrington

[Dallas Mead]

57 minutes ago, Scubby said:

Just like that!

Another player out of the door at Warrington

Good.

[LeeF]

16 hours ago, Damien said:

Cooper to join Wigan next season. I can't say I'm too thrilled really, hope he didnt cost too much:

Mike Cooper to join Wigan - Wigan Warriors

Not surprised Cooper is leaving - his “attitude” could be questioned after last season’s barging of Price and he has, according to some reports, been unwilling to buy into Powell’s strategy etc.

I am though surprised that Wigan have signed him though. Hopefully he doesn’t rock the new culture that is being created there

[Damien]

1 minute ago, LeeF said:

Not surprised Cooper is leaving - his “attitude” could be questioned after last season’s barging of Price and he has, according to some reports, been unwilling to buy into Powell’s strategy etc.

I am though surprised that Wigan have signed him though. Hopefully he doesn’t rock the new culture that is being created there

I said that on the other thread. He is a bad signing, an average 34 year old forward isn't what Wigan needs. We have stacks of young forwards that can play that backup role.

[LeeF]

9 minutes ago, Damien said:

I said that on the other thread. He is a bad signing, an average 34 year old forward isn't what Wigan needs. We have stacks of young forwards that can play that backup role.

I hadn’t seen your other comment but agree the signing makes less sense the more you think about it

[Desert Skipper]

44 minutes ago, LeeF said:

his “attitude” could be questioned after last season’s barging of Price and he has, according to some reports, been unwilling to buy into Powell’s strategy etc.

The second part may well be true, but the first part has been confirmed as a myth. Price himself said it was nothing, I think Cooper was disappointed in the way the game was going that day.

I’m just looking forward to Powell working with the excellent bunch of young players breaking through. I think that’s where we start with this ‘new era’, and if it means a few fallouts, an exodus of the old guard, and a season of disjointed performances then so be it. It could be just what we need to brush the slate clean.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Desert Skipper said:

The second part may well be true, but the first part has been confirmed as a myth. Price himself said it was nothing, I think Cooper was disappointed in the way the game was going that day.

I’m just looking forward to Powell working with the excellent bunch of young players breaking through. I think that’s where we start with this ‘new era’, and if it means a few fallouts, an exodus of the old guard, and a season of disjointed performances then so be it. It could be just what we need to brush the slate clean.

Why do we need to brush the slate clean though? If I want to improve my home I can build on it with some tweaks. I don't need to burn it down to start. 

If my home was a dump then maybe, but it isn't. 

The Wire team wasn't a car crash. It now is. 

[Desert Skipper]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

Why do we need to brush the slate clean though? If I want to improve my home I can build on it with some tweaks. I don't need to burn it down to start. 

If my home was a dump then maybe, but it isn't. 

The Wire team wasn't a car crash. It now is. 

I agree with you to a point, but we tried tweaking it every season and ended up spending a lot of money on a house that wasn’t worth much on the market. To use another analogy, maybe we just painted over the cracks with some expensive Farrow and Ball pastels?

Maybe Powell the architect has drawn up some impressive new-build plans, that unfortunately require us to tear down the lovely Edwardian gable ends, the Georgian porch and the 16th century outside toilet. Maybe they just didn’t all go together, as good as it sounded on paper? 

In all seriousness though, Powell has done this before. It was he who got rid of the old guard at Leeds and left Tony Smith with a few great youngsters and some hard-working new recruits. He did the same at Featherstone and worked wonders with pennies at Castleford, as well as somehow turning bang-average journeymen into Men of Steel. He might be a miserable so and so on camera, and he might ruffle feathers within the Warrington old guard, but I’ve got more faith in his methods than I do in another NRL assistant maintaining the status quo at the club. Remember, this is just one season where we are working out who fits in to the next era and who doesn’t. Some Warrington fans don’t want a shake-up, some think it’s absolutely essential. I’m in the latter.

I guess we’ll see by this time next season whether we made the right calls or not.

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, Desert Skipper said:

The second part may well be true, but the first part has been confirmed as a myth. Price himself said it was nothing, I think Cooper was disappointed in the way the game was going that day.

I’m just looking forward to Powell working with the excellent bunch of young players breaking through. I think that’s where we start with this ‘new era’, and if it means a few fallouts, an exodus of the old guard, and a season of disjointed performances then so be it. It could be just what we need to brush the slate clean.

No myth as it was in a televised match and Cooper did barge into Price. If the latter wanted to brush it off then that’s his prerogative but Cooper’s actions were out of order in that instance and maybe were an early indication of the fault lines in the club

[Dave T]

Just now, LeeF said:

No myth as it was in a televised match and Cooper did barge into Price. If the latter wanted to brush it off then that’s his prerogative but Cooper’s actions were out of order in that instance and maybe were an early indication of the fault lines in the club

I remember watching that after it was raised here, and I recall thinking there was nothing in it then. It looked no more than a player walking off and a mild collision in a confined space.

[Barry Badrinath]

i dont think i ever saw this

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

16 hours ago, graveyard johnny said:

sign that cracking forward who plays for hudds- wire could really do with someone like him- chris? something?

In fairness I thought Wire had done the right thing at the time but I guess there is a certain amount 'I'll show them' in his attitude this season 

Shame for them that Holmes isn't showing the same but in they opposite direction

 

 

[Dave T]

23 minutes ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

In fairness I thought Wire had done the right thing at the time but I guess there is a certain amount 'I'll show them' in his attitude this season 

Shame for them that Holmes isn't showing the same but in they opposite direction

 

 

Hill was still playing very very well for Wire. It was the start of this 'we need to freshen things up' approach that has worked so poorly so far.

[Desert Skipper]

55 minutes ago, LeeF said:

No myth as it was in a televised match and Cooper did barge into Price. If the latter wanted to brush it off then that’s his prerogative but Cooper’s actions were out of order in that instance and maybe were an early indication of the fault lines in the club

Yes I saw the barge-past, it definitely happened, I just don’t think there’s much to read into it in terms of a ‘coach versus player disagreement’ type thing.   It does however show character traits that Powell may not want in his team of course. Fair enough.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Desert Skipper said:

Yes I saw the barge-past, it definitely happened, I just don’t think there’s much to read into it in terms of a ‘coach versus player disagreement’ type thing.   It does however show character traits that Powell may not want in his team of course. Fair enough.

I do think it's possibly simpler with Cooper. He hasn't really stepped up into being a pack leader and I suspect his wage was decent at Wire, so has been moved on. Although I thought we got a decent subsidy on the cap due to him being home grown (is that set at a limit?).

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I remember watching that after it was raised here, and I recall thinking there was nothing in it then. It looked no more than a player walking off and a mild collision in a confined space.

To me it looked more deliberate at the time especially with Cooper not, at least, putting his hand up to acknowledge/ apologise but I wasn’t involved so obviously don’t know for certain. Either way it’s not a good look

[Just Browny]

The rumour I heard was that Price was much happier to let players clear off in the afternoons to pursue outside business interests, which Powell is much less keen on. I think that applies to Hill and Cooper.

Without knowing the details it is hard to know what is right and wrong.

When Smith came in, we had a good set of players performing very poorly. Rather than kick the lot out, Smith worked with a number of players previously considered bad apples (e.g. Briers) and got them performing at the level they ought to have been.

Whereas I'd say Powell inherited a decent squad and chucked the baby out with the bathwater. I suppose we get to see if he can refill the bath PDQ.

[Dave T]

26 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

The rumour I heard was that Price was much happier to let players clear off in the afternoons to pursue outside business interests, which Powell is much less keen on. I think that applies to Hill and Cooper.

Without knowing the details it is hard to know what is right and wrong.

When Smith came in, we had a good set of players performing very poorly. Rather than kick the lot out, Smith worked with a number of players previously considered bad apples (e.g. Briers) and got them performing at the level they ought to have been.

Whereas I'd say Powell inherited a decent squad and chucked the baby out with the bathwater. I suppose we get to see if he can refill the bath PDQ.

I think that's a good summary of the approaches. And I would add that despite the claim in this thread that we were poor last year, we weren't - we beat all of the teams around us, including Wigan three times and Saints twice in the season.

I've been clear on my position, we needed to move Price on and make some changes, but Powell has work to do, and I think he has put himself in a tough position.

[Desert Skipper]

1 hour ago, Just Browny said:

When Smith came in, we had a good set of players performing very poorly. Rather than kick the lot out, Smith worked with a number of players previously considered bad apples (e.g. Briers) and got them performing at the level they ought to have been.

I think a lot of people forget that Smith was quick to move on the one player who was in his prime and a consistent international - Gleeson. He was known to be unhappy and his attitude was a negative influence on the squad. That was a bold move but one that worked, despite Smith being ridiculed at the time for bringing in Mathers. It took a couple of years for Smith to make us a top team, although we did have a repeat cup success.

[Just Browny]

9 minutes ago, Desert Skipper said:

I think a lot of people forget that Smith was quick to move on the one player who was in his prime and a consistent international - Gleeson. He was known to be unhappy and his attitude was a negative influence on the squad. That was a bold move but one that worked, despite Smith being ridiculed at the time for bringing in Mathers. It took a couple of years for Smith to make us a top team, although we did have a repeat cup success.

Yes I broadbrushed that a bit and you are right about Gleeson. But I think my point stands: Smith didn't see the need for a full clear out despite a squad of players who everyone said was constantly taking the p*** and full of big egos who didn't want to work hard. Within a few months we went from Matt King giving the finger to his own fans at London to him destroying Tomkins at Widnes; from Monaghan saying he didn't want to come back to England after the Aussie summer to becoming nearly unplayable for about two years.

[Desert Skipper]

1 hour ago, Just Browny said:

Yes I broadbrushed that a bit and you are right about Gleeson. But I think my point stands: Smith didn't see the need for a full clear out despite a squad of players who everyone said was constantly taking the p*** and full of big egos who didn't want to work hard. Within a few months we went from Matt King giving the finger to his own fans at London to him destroying Tomkins at Widnes; from Monaghan saying he didn't want to come back to England after the Aussie summer to becoming nearly unplayable for about two years.

I think the difference here though is the players we’ve let go have not agreed to Powell’s methods. Hill and Cooper (and possibly Charnley?) have business interests outside the club which they’ve previously been allowed to pursue, not giving their full devotion to training and the team cause. Whilst I admire what the club has done by helping them towards a post-playing career, it doesn’t set a good example to the the rest of the team if it appears they’re getting special treatment and allowed to skip certain sessions.

I don’t have a link, but Powell’s first meeting with the players has been posted here and on RLFANS previously, and he makes it quite clear what he feels the issues are with our failure in the key games, what he expects of the players going forward and how the senior team members must set the standard. Being there at every session is the least I’d expect of them. As someone has pointed out on a different forum, did Peacock, Sinfield and co ever skip training?

Powell has a massive job at Warrington to turn this resistance his way but I’m backing him at the moment and giving him some time to fix us.

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Desert Skipper said:

I think the difference here though is the players we’ve let go have not agreed to Powell’s methods. Hill and Cooper (and possibly Charnley?) have business interests outside the club which they’ve previously been allowed to pursue, not giving their full devotion to training and the team cause. Whilst I admire what the club has done by helping them towards a post-playing career, it doesn’t set a good example to the the rest of the team if it appears they’re getting special treatment and allowed to skip certain sessions.

I don’t have a link, but Powell’s first meeting with the players has been posted here and on RLFANS previously, and he makes it quite clear what he feels the issues are with our failure in the key games, what he expects of the players going forward and how the senior team members must set the standard. Being there at every session is the least I’d expect of them. As someone has pointed out on a different forum, did Peacock, Sinfield and co ever skip training?

Powell has a massive job at Warrington to turn this resistance his way but I’m backing him at the moment and giving him some time to fix us.

Do we have any evidence that players were missing training for other work?