Jump to content

Shaun Wane


Recommended Posts


This England set-up isn't the same as Man U who change managers at the drop of hat. 

Wane must stay and finish the job. Stability is required at this level, not knee jerk demands for a change after one result.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth."

JohnM - 17/01/2023

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jughead said:

The GB tour and timing of it was farcical a year out from an Ashes series and two (at the time) from a World Cup. 

England’s MO was to win the final, Wane’s said it himself numerous times. They failed that objective and his job should be reviewed. 

Is your job at risk every time you miss an objective?

Wane must stay. Wane will stay.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth."

JohnM - 17/01/2023

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JohnM said:

Is your job at risk every time you miss an objective?

Wane must stay. Wane will stay.

If I fail at my job, yes it is. 

Wane failed to reach the World Cup Final with the easiest route to a final of any previous England coach. His job status should most definitely be considered.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jughead said:

If I fail at my job, yes it is. 

Wane failed to reach the World Cup Final with the easiest route to a final of any previous England coach. His job status should most definitely be considered.

Yes and then kept on.

Gosh was not long ago that Samoa were favourites before start of WC. 

If rfl had more money a better set of assistants and specialists.

Edited by redjonn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, redjonn said:

Yes and then kept on.

Gosh was not long ago that Samoa were favourites before start of WC. 

I have no idea what your first sentence means. 

Samoa were favourites for what? The first game of the tournament? England still had the easiest route to a final that they’ve ever had. They typically play Australia in the groups. They’d been drawn against a tier two nation (albeit a tough) as the next best team in their group. With home advantage, failure to meet the objectives set (and ones that Wane himself banged the drum for) is something that needs reviewing. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jughead said:

I have no idea what your first sentence means. 

Samoa were favourites for what? The first game of the tournament? England still had the easiest route to a final that they’ve ever had. They typically play Australia in the groups. They’d been drawn against a tier two nation (albeit a tough) as the next best team in their group. With home advantage, failure to meet the objectives set (and ones that Wane himself banged the drum for) is something that needs reviewing. 

The route was practically the same as other years. These days there is little discernable difference between NZ, Tonga, England and Samoa and I think we need to get over this big 3 mentality. In 2017 we scraped by Tonga in the semis, and could easily have lost, and in 2013 lost to NZ, as we did in 2008. These things happen. We've never had to beat Australia in a knockout game to get to a final.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Damien said:

The route was practically the same as other years. These days there is little discernable difference between NZ, Tonga, England and Samoa and I think we need to get over this big 3 mentality. In 2017 we scraped by Tonga in the semis, and could easily have lost, and in 2013 lost to NZ, as we did in 2008. These things happen. We've never had to beat Australia in a knockout game to get to a final.

In 1995, 2000, 2008, 2013 and 2017 England have played Australia in the group stages. Never before have England had an easier group or route to the final than this tournament. This was England’s easiest route to a final as the draw meant they would only face a tier one nation in the final and not before. Failure to make the final should result in the questioning of Wane’s job. 

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jughead said:

In 1995, 2000, 2008, 2013 and 2017 England have played Australia in the group stages. Never before have England had an easier group or route to the final than this tournament. This was England’s easiest route to a final as the draw meant they would only face a tier one nation in the final and not before. Failure to make the final should result in the questioning of Wane’s job. 

I quite clearly said in a knockout game. A rigged match v Australia in a group stage, so they avoid each other until the final, is not that but you know that. Those formats did nothing to give England a tougher path to the final.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Damien said:

I quite clearly said in a knockout game. A rigged match v Australia in a group stage, so they avoid each other until the final, is not that but you know that. Those formats did nothing to give England a tougher path to the final.

I mean you’re the one arguing that about England’s route to a final. It’s simply fact that England, for the first time in five tournaments, have not been drawn with a tier one nation in their group. This, therefore, was England’s easiest route to the final than previous tournaments. They’ve failed to make the final, losing to a tier two nation, instead of a tier one nation. 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jughead said:

I mean you’re the one arguing that about England’s route to a final. It’s simply fact that England, for the first time in five tournaments, have not been drawn with a tier one nation in their group. This, therefore, was England’s easiest route to the final than previous tournaments. They’ve failed to make the final, losing to a tier two nation, instead of a tier one nation. 

You are the one making claims about routes without looking at the facts.

Now instead of talking about knockout games and a route to the final you are trying to divert to rigged groups were 3 out of 4 teams qualified, no one in their right mind would think that is a hard route. Beating Australia was never a necessity.

Edited by Damien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jughead said:

If I fail at my job, yes it is. 

Wane failed to reach the World Cup Final with the easiest route to a final of any previous England coach. His job status should most definitely be considered.

Fortunately, he'll stay. The alternative is to start from ground zero all over again, in which case we'll be having the same conversation in 3 years time.

 

  • Like 2

"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth."

JohnM - 17/01/2023

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jughead said:

If I fail at my job, yes it is. 

Wane failed to reach the World Cup Final with the easiest route to a final of any previous England coach. His job status should most definitely be considered.

And who exactly is a better option?

We are not exactly bursting with quality English coaches, and when we tried a (decorated) Australian we fared little better overall.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, paulwalker71 said:

And who exactly is a better option?

We are not exactly bursting with quality English coaches, and when we tried a (decorated) Australian we fared little better overall.

Technically, we did better because we reached the final by actually beating a tier two nation.

As for who would be in with a shout or taking over if Wane was to go (I’m not saying he should, more that his position should be reviewed after this tournament because of the teams failure and looking ahead at 2025 with a number of longstanding players likely to be too old or retired), I don’t think “but who would take over?” is ever an actual argument. The opportunity would be to coach one of the top four or five nations, which I’m sure would appeal to many, I’m sure.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only time we come close to beating either Australia or New Zealand is when we play British style Rugby League , not trying to beat them at their own game, at least Wane up to now has tried to do that. Sadly, if we had reached the final I think the Aussies would have wiped the floor with us, especially on todays showing. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Expatknight said:

The only time we come close to beating either Australia or New Zealand is when we play British style Rugby League , not trying to beat them at their own game, at least Wane up to now has tried to do that. Sadly, if we had reached the final I think the Aussies would have wiped the floor with us, especially on todays showing. 

I think the Aussies would've beat either team from today's semi final. Yesterday's semi final was on a different planet,it was quite simply superb by both teams.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, paulwalker71 said:

And who exactly is a better option?

We are not exactly bursting with quality English coaches, and when we tried a (decorated) Australian we fared little better overall.

We should pick the best available, regardless of the nationality.

Toronto Wolfpack Global Ambassador

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnM said:

This England set-up isn't the same as Man U who change managers at the drop of hat. 

Wane must stay and finish the job. Stability is required at this level, not knee jerk demands for a change after one result.

One result.

Home World Cup.

Avoided clashes vs the big 2 until the final.

Lost at home to Samoa in SF with an embarassing display.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Toronto Wolfpack Global Ambassador

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MatthewWoody said:

One result.

Home World Cup.

Avoided clashes vs the big 2 until the final.

Lost at home to Samoa in SF with an embarassing display.

Embarrassing? I’ve not read the game thread yet as I am still gutted. England were under par, much due to Samoa making it really hard for them. However, what I and many people in the stands saw was England continually fighting back against a very good Samoan side stacked with stars. We were not at our best and made plenty of mistakes; but England fought really hard and nearly nearly got over the line - very far from embarrassing.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jughead said:

I mean you’re the one arguing that about England’s route to a final. It’s simply fact that England, for the first time in five tournaments, have not been drawn with a tier one nation in their group. This, therefore, was England’s easiest route to the final than previous tournaments. They’ve failed to make the final, losing to a tier two nation, instead of a tier one nation. 

Samoa are obviously a tier 1 team 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

England and New Zealand usually have to beat each other before reaching the final.

If we look at it from Samoa's viewpoint they realised they could reach the final without playing NZ or Aus. They assessed this was a great opportunity and needed to peak for the QF and SF. The first game was irrelevant, losing didn't involve changing halves of the draw.

England seemed to be in denial about the draw being favourable and almost talked it into being more difficult than it was. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...