Melbourne Storm and the great celery hat debate

[broncos4life]

AP, is that you Craig?

 

[Big Pete]

Bellamy's tenure as NSW coach saw Kurt Gidley captain.

Enough said.

 

[broncos4life]

Bellamy's tenure as NSW coach saw Kurt Gidley captain.

Enough said.

Bench Captain - How could we even think of questioning the great Craig Bellemy

 

[Anonymous person]

I like it how when it suits you (eg, defending Bellamys ability) it's all up to the players and how they perform and it's ok to lose if he's up against a better team, but other time when it suits (eg, downplaying Bennetts abilty), it comes down to the coach, and he had a fairly decent squad, so should have done better.

and i like how when it suits you and the majority of BHQ, generally when a wayne bennett team loses, its all up to the players but when they win its all the coach.

as ive always maintained, the state of origin coach is more of a "mentor" role than an actual coach. its the best of the best, they know what they have to do. having only what, 1 week before each game isnt enough time to completely change the way players play to fit a certain coaches gameplan and style. the coach in origin has to motivate the players basically and handle the interchange.

like i said, would you say that the coach of a guy who lost to Usain Bolt at the last 2 olympics would cop rubbish and claims that his coaching ability got shown up?

 

[m1c]

So AP, WB > CB at Origin level?

 

[Anonymous person]

yep, no doubt in my mind about that.

Bennett cleaned house for the 2001 series and that was what won us the series. bellamy wouldve needed to do something drastic like that for NSW to win, but it also couldve meant QLD had another clean sweep or 2 if the players didnt fire.

i just find it hilarious that now for the sake of this discussion everyones acting like the QLD team of the last 7 years is just "ok" and that NSW were just as good every year. they werent. Lockyer, Smith, Thurston and Slater WILL be immortals one day. there is no doubt about that. they are all the best players in their positions that the game has arguably ever seen (though in lockyers case not so much one position but just overall as a player). all playing in the same team. seems some here are talking down the QLD team just to try and talk down Bellamy, like he lost an unlosable series.

 

[OXY-351]

and i like how when it suits you and the majority of BHQ, generally when a wayne bennett team loses, its all up to the players but when they win its all the coach.

When I have I ever said that?

as ive always maintained, the state of origin coach is more of a "mentor" role than an actual coach. its the best of the best, they know what they have to do. having only what, 1 week before each game isnt enough time to completely change the way players play to fit a certain coaches gameplan and style. the coach in origin has to motivate the players basically and handle the interchange.

I don't completely disagree with you on that point, but I still think the coach has to manage his team to beat the other team. Whether that "management" be by man management and motivating his team, or by coming up with a superior game plan, then it's really up to the indivual choice of the coach as he sees fit given the circumstances.

I guess it comes down to whether you think the players or the coach is ultimately responsible for a teams performance. You can't have it one way to suit one argument, and another way to suit a different argument. Either you believe the buck stops with the coach or it doesn't.

like i said, would you say that the coach of a guy who lost to Usain Bolt at the last 2 olympics would cop rubbish and claims that his coaching ability got shown up?

No, but I also don't think that is really a good example. Running is an individual sport that is based solely on the performance of that indivual, with very little (if any) tactics involved to counter any other indivuals in the race. You have no control over how someone else runs, so are limited to getting the best out of your own runner. RL is a team sport where you do have control over how the other teams plays, so the role of the coach is much more important imo.

 

[Anonymous person]

I guess it comes down to whether you think the players or the coach is ultimately responsible for a teams performance. You can't have it one way to suit one argument, and another way to suit a different argument. Either you believe the buck stops with the coach or it doesn't.

i dont think it does at all. the players are the ones out there playing, not the coach.

the coach can give the players a better chance to win through coaching methods - Bellamy is obviously a good example here, as he has taken what seems like dozens of "nobodies" and old/unwanted-by-other-club players and got them to slot straight in to the well-oiled machine that is the storm, making them look like world beaters. their success comes from basically having players be interchangeable - lose one guy, another comes in to take his place and knows exactly what he has to do and how to do it to get the job done. His gameplan can give them the foundations for a win, but its all ultimately up to the players.

alternatively, the coach can hinder them through playing players out of position, poor use of interchange, not developing effective set plays or attacking/defensive structure. playing second rowers with very little attacking flair in the centres doesnt get your team any advantages over the opposition. having an interchange player only play less than 10 minutes doesnt help the team.

but again, in the end it all boils down to the players.

No, but I also don't think that is really a good example. Running is an individual sport that is based solely on the performance of that indivual, with very little (if any) tactics involved to counter any other indivuals in the race. You have no control over how someone else runs, so are limited to getting the best out of your own runner. RL is a team sport where you do have control over how the other teams plays, so the role of the coach is much more important imo.

the players that the Queensland team have had though, theyve done things you cant coach against. slater being lightning quick and grounding a kick millimetres inside the dead ball line cant be coached against. thurstons show and go - everyone knows hes going to do it, yet he STILL gets through even the best defenders. Inglis' fend, you cant coach against that. you can take the best defender in the world and inglis will still make them look like a child when 1 on 1. sure you can tell the players to always put 2 defenders on him, but then you leave cronk/thurston/lockyer with a defensive line thats 1 player short and they WILL take advantage of it. same with folau under the high ball - you can coach jumping techniques or blocking patterns all you want, but how does the coach stop folau taking a catch like his famous origin try? you cant coach against it.

 

[OXY-351]

the players that the Queensland team have had though, theyve done things you cant coach against. slater being lightning quick and grounding a kick millimetres inside the dead ball line cant be coached against. thurstons show and go - everyone knows hes going to do it, yet he STILL gets through even the best defenders. Inglis' fend, you cant coach against that. you can take the best defender in the world and inglis will still make them look like a child when 1 on 1. sure you can tell the players to always put 2 defenders on him, but then you leave cronk/thurston/lockyer with a defensive line thats 1 player short and they WILL take advantage of it. same with folau under the high ball - you can coach jumping techniques or blocking patterns all you want, but how does the coach stop folau taking a catch like his famous origin try? you cant coach against it.

What's that got to do with your running vs rugby league example?

So a coach can come with game plans to mimimize the strengths of the opposition and try and capitalise on their weanknesses (remember bennett's plan in 2006 of putting Berrigan on Inglis). Sure they might not always work, but at least they have the oppurtunity.

In running, if Usian Bolt is going to run 9.58 seconds over the 100m, there isn't a single thing the coach of an opposition runner can (legally) do about it.

Your example of a running coach made no sense in the context of the discussion.

 

[broncos4life]

What's that got to do with your running vs rugby league example?

So a coach can come with game plans to mimimize the strengths of the opposition and try and capitalise on their weanknesses (remember bennett's plan in 2006 of putting Berrigan on Inglis). Sure they might not always work, but at least they have the oppurtunity.

In running, if Usian Bolt is going to run 9.58 seconds over the 100m, there isn't a single thing the coach of an opposition runner can (legally) do about it.

Your example of a running coach made no sense in the context of the discussion.

Unless of course that coach is CB

 

[Nashy]

 

[Anonymous person]

Your example of a running coach made no sense in the context of the discussion.

it did actually, quite clearly. you just completely missed it.

i was saying just because someone lost doesnt mean their coaches coaching ability isnt still the best. this QLD team is/was the Usain Bolt of the rugby league world. we might never see a better team. im sure the guys who ran second against bolt were great runners too, with good coaches - but they werent going to beat Bolt.

In running, if Usian Bolt is going to run 9.58 seconds over the 100m, there isn't a single thing the coach of an opposition runner can (legally) do about it.

likewise, if Inglis is going to knock 2 people completely off their feet with fends and run 60m to setup tries there isnt much the opposition coach can do. if folau is going to AFL leap onto someones back and take one of the best marks youll ever see in rugby league and then ground the ball with one hand while his whole body is off the ground there isnt much the opposition coach can do.

 

[m1c]

if Inglis is going to knock 2 people completely off their feet with fends and run 60m to setup tries there isnt much the opposition coach can do. if folau is going to AFL leap onto someones back and take one of the best marks youll ever see in rugby league and then ground the ball with one hand while his whole body is off the ground there isnt much the opposition coach can do.

Don't those come down to defensive structure, which ultimately comes back to the coach again? Inglis was kept pretty quiet with Stuart pulling the NSW reigns... A few blocking plays and Izzy doesn't even get to the contest. CB was pretty average if you look at those things.

 

[Anonymous person]

Don't those come down to defensive structure, which ultimately comes back to the coach again? Inglis was kept pretty quiet with Stuart pulling the NSW reigns... A few blocking plays and Izzy doesn't even get to the contest. CB was pretty average if you look at those things.

defensive structures? they had a perfectly fine defensive structure, inglis was just too good. inglis also set up/scored just as many tries while stuart was there, if not more.

 

[Jeba]

Lol

Like I said, the Queensland team had 4 possibly 5 future immortals in it at the same time. It is/was the best team we will ever see in rugby league. Yes the nsw team was good, but there was no beating QLD from a coaching perspective. It was up to the players, and QLD was full of big game performers who could single handedly turn a match.

It'd be like if Bellamy was coaching a 100m sprinter who was up against usain bolt. Just because he loses doesn't mean it proves his coach is no good.

Bellamy couldn't even beat QLD in 2008 when Lockyer didn't play.

 

[Anonymous person]

Bellamy couldn't even beat QLD in 2008 when Lockyer didn't play.

I know right! the QLD halves pairing was one of the worst ive ever seen. Thurston? whos he, probably reserve grader. and that "scott prince" guy, he could never be the driving force behind a team winning a premiership.

Bellamy had the team of the century with Anasta and Pearce at the helm for that decider.

 

[subsbligh]

I think the point being made is that the closest thing to telling whether the Storm would have won without cheating the salary cap is evident in the fact that their coach was unable to beat his own players with another squad of very talented players.

 

[OXY-351]

likewise, if Inglis is going to knock 2 people completely off their feet with fends and run 60m to setup tries there isnt much the opposition coach can do.

Remind me again how quiet Inglis was in the 2006 gf?

You're kidding yourself if you think there is any comparison between the amount of influence a rugby league coach can have over a match compred to how much a running coach can have over a race.