Ye Olde Coach Argument

[Anonymous person]

lol

i love how its just the same guys who think i get proven wrong every time. a bunch of scientologists telling me that theres a guy called Xenu who did all that whack stuff doesnt make it true, and neither does a bunch of people who just love bennett and hate me telling me im wrong doesnt make it true ;)

Sailor is one of the biggest stars the NRL has ever had, and it doesnt matter how much he sucked at union, he was one of the premier wingers in the league when he left and he came straight back in the form that he left. if he came back to league under another coach and completely sucked, then went to st george and thrived then sure, you would have a point - but he didnt, and you dont. its like saying that if hunt comes back to league in say 3 years after an unsuccessful stint in AFL, and plays as well or just a bit worse than he did before he left but this time Henjak is the coach, that Henjak is the reason for that. star players dont just forget how to play lol. one of the stupidest comments ive ever read on this forum.

Smith was going great guns at Melbourne, and was one of their gun forward pack when they won the premiership.

Priddis is Priddis, anyone that says hes not a star mustnt have watched a game of footy in their life. well either that or they thought michael ryan was better, like your mate (and subsequently you too Jeb) Bennett. You always bring up Wayne Bennetts past record to justify how hes good, yet you wont look at Luke Priddis' lol. he was the best hooker in the game when he was with us, and then single handedly won penrith that grand final. he may have had a below his average season or 2, but hey, iirc Darren Lockyer has had a few years in a row well below his best - does that mean hes not a star?

then you guys also go on about how some players made their origin debut under bennett, and how there are more going to.......but disregard costigan saying just because he plays origin doesnt mean hes a star lol.

oh yeah, and i forgot creagh, but now someone brings him up - he was selected for the Australian team to play france in 2005. he was also selected in the Kangaroos squad for the 2008 world cup. but yeah, of course wayne bennett was the reason he turned out to be a good player, isnt he? wayne bennett was the reason he had already been selected to play for australia TWICE in the years before bennett was even at the saints lol.

and weyman, well in the 6 seasons before he went to the saints he only played 47 matches - thats right, on average just under 8 matches a year - so its a bit hard to say that his step-up is just due to bennett. maybe its because hes gotten to play half as many games in the last 12 months as he played in the 6 years prior? no, couldnt be that, it must be bennett lol.

your definition of 'big name or star player' is what most others would describe as 'superstars'. so by your definition, you could choose any team that has been successful and say that their coach did a wonderful job with a team with only one star player lol. because going by your definition, melbourne and brisbane are really the only teams with more than 1-2 'star' players.

ethos, yes those players debuted under bennett, but again, you go back to some players just going to be stars regardless of coaching. sailor was NEVER not going to be a star. he basically started the whole 'big powerful winger' thing that pretty much every team goes for these days. same with priddis - he was always going to shine as a hooker. hes just a quality player. costigan, well if you want bennett to take the credit for him falling off the rails, being pretty disappointing on the field, and getting sacked then sure, go for it. its at canberra - not under bennett - that he lifted his game. boyd, well we just dont know. hes never been coached by anyone else, but he came into first grade like he'd already played a season or 2, so its pretty clear that he was always going to be pretty good.

 

[Jeba]

Sailor is one of the biggest stars the NRL has ever had, and it doesnt matter how much he sucked at union, he was one of the premier wingers in the league when he left and he came straight back in the form that he left.

You should've saved this for the end of your long post, because people will stop reading at this point. Seriously, Sailor wasn't half the winger he was when he came back than at the end of the 2001 season and if you think any different you're just delusional.

 

[Bucking Beads]

Leave AP alone he is right, he is a perfect specimen of a man and should be treated accordingly!!

 

[Flutterby]

as i said earlier, bennet gets the best out of the players... he doesnt get the best out of the team.. there is a MASSIVE difference.

in 1 scenario u have good players with potential, and with bennets coaching they realise that and become stars

on the other hand you can have a team of good solid players but not stars, but good teamwork and tactics.

the latter means no matter who u have, u can still be competitive, the former relies on having players with the skills in the first place. i know which id prefer

Yep I'd prefer the one that wins the premierships

 

[Kimlo]

lol

i love how its just the same guys who think i get proven wrong every time. a bunch of scientologists telling me that theres a guy called Xenu who did all that whack stuff doesnt make it true, and neither does a bunch of people who just love bennett and hate me telling me im wrong doesnt make it true ;)

Sailor is one of the biggest stars the NRL has ever had, and it doesnt matter how much he sucked at union, he was one of the premier wingers in the league when he left and he came straight back in the form that he left. if he came back to league under another coach and completely sucked, then went to st george and thrived then sure, you would have a point - but he didnt, and you dont. its like saying that if hunt comes back to league in say 3 years after an unsuccessful stint in AFL, and plays as well or just a bit worse than he did before he left but this time Henjak is the coach, that Henjak is the reason for that. star players dont just forget how to play lol. one of the stupidest comments ive ever read on this forum.

Smith was going great guns at Melbourne, and was one of their gun forward pack when they won the premiership.

Priddis is Priddis, anyone that says hes not a star mustnt have watched a game of footy in their life. well either that or they thought michael ryan was better, like your mate (and subsequently you too Jeb) Bennett. You always bring up Wayne Bennetts past record to justify how hes good, yet you wont look at Luke Priddis' lol. he was the best hooker in the game when he was with us, and then single handedly won penrith that grand final. he may have had a below his average season or 2, but hey, iirc Darren Lockyer has had a few years in a row well below his best - does that mean hes not a star?

then you guys also go on about how some players made their origin debut under bennett, and how there are more going to.......but disregard costigan saying just because he plays origin doesnt mean hes a star lol.

oh yeah, and i forgot creagh, but now someone brings him up - he was selected for the Australian team to play france in 2005. he was also selected in the Kangaroos squad for the 2008 world cup. but yeah, of course wayne bennett was the reason he turned out to be a good player, isnt he? wayne bennett was the reason he had already been selected to play for australia TWICE in the years before bennett was even at the saints lol.

and weyman, well in the 6 seasons before he went to the saints he only played 47 matches - thats right, on average just under 8 matches a year - so its a bit hard to say that his step-up is just due to bennett. maybe its because hes gotten to play half as many games in the last 12 months as he played in the 6 years prior? no, couldnt be that, it must be bennett lol.

your definition of 'big name or star player' is what most others would describe as 'superstars'. so by your definition, you could choose any team that has been successful and say that their coach did a wonderful job with a team with only one star player lol. because going by your definition, melbourne and brisbane are really the only teams with more than 1-2 'star' players.

ethos, yes those players debuted under bennett, but again, you go back to some players just going to be stars regardless of coaching. sailor was NEVER not going to be a star. he basically started the whole 'big powerful winger' thing that pretty much every team goes for these days. same with priddis - he was always going to shine as a hooker. hes just a quality player. costigan, well if you want bennett to take the credit for him falling off the rails, being pretty disappointing on the field, and getting sacked then sure, go for it. its at canberra - not under bennett - that he lifted his game. boyd, well we just dont know. hes never been coached by anyone else, but he came into first grade like he'd already played a season or 2, so its pretty clear that he was always going to be pretty good.

So basically everything that's good in any team that Bennett has coached he has nothing to do with it and it would of happened anyway, yeah?
FFS give him some credit. He has won 6 premierships, one only 4 years ago and since taking over at St George he has made them the best week-to-week team in the competition. That didn't translate to finals form last year but who knows what might happen this year.

If Bennett had Cronk/Slater/Smith as his 1/7/9 I reckon he would win the comp as well.

 

[Flutterby]

To be fair AP hasn't said Bennett did everything wrong and nothing right. In fact he has stated that he thinks Bennett was a great coach at one point.

 

[Big Pete]

I agree with AP's point that Bennett is a great recruiter. He brings in the right players, guys who change the environment of a club BUT to suggest that's all Bennett does, assembles some players together and for them to do their best is a joke.

 

[Anonymous person]

I actually didn't even read AP's last post because I know that he'll miss the point.

I don't care what your definition of a star is, but FACT is, there are about 10+ Dragons players playing at Skilled Park right now that have had their best season in their whole entire career, (And most of the forum tends to agree with that) and if that's not a reflection of Wayne Bennett's coaching in anyway way, shape or form, then what is?

no, you didnt read it because you know youre wrong. just like you believe youre right when you say Carney is a fullback, you believe youre right now.

oh and i also forgot about ben hornby. he played for NSW in 2004, 2006, and 2008. he also played for Australia in 2006. so ANOTHER star player who was already there before Bennett got there. whats that, about 7 or 8 origin/test/premiership winners we're up to now?

The thing that Bennett has done right at the Dragons is he settled their gameplan down. he dumbed it down to the basics, with the hope that with the possession that theyd get from completing their sets of 6 and playing mistake free football would wear out the other team and provide the STAR PLAYERS like Soward, Sailor, Morris, Boyd, Cooper, etc to work their magic. you know, like how the Broncos played when they were full of stars. and its worked, because the players are good enough to do it.

where they come unstuck though is the same place the other bennett coached teams of the last 10 years have come unstuck - finals time! when all the other teams ramp it up a notch, bennetts teams tend to stay on the same sort of level. it happened to the broncos, and it happened to Saints last year.

which is funny, because last year was the first time the Broncos had really stepped up a notch right from the get-go of the finals. even in 2006 we went into the finals and got smacked around the ears in round 1.

and yes, the dragons players are playing the best footy they have in a while - that tends to happen when you have 8 representative players in your team, along with one of the most dangerous halves in the game controlling the play. but remember, we had years where about 10+ Broncos players had their worst seasons in their entire careers while Bennett was our coach, and if thats not a reflection of Wayne Bennetts coaching in any way, shape or form, then what is?

 

[Anonymous person]

No, I didn't read it because I know that you're just going to think you're right all the time.

If you think Wayne is only a great recruiter and not a great "coach" then I'm going to leave it at that and let you embarrass yourself with those opinions that 99% of the rugby league community don't agree with (which means, 99% of the rugby league community don't know anything about league right, and you do? lolz)

There is just no point arguing with a crippled animal.

"No, I didn't read it because I know that you're just going to think you're right all the time. ".........kinda like you then hey? only i am actually right, because i dont watch rugby league with blinkers on like you do.

wayne bennett WAS a great coach. hes not now. hes an adequate coach provided he has good players. his gameplan with the dragons is simple, simple, simple, simple, simple. its working because the players there - some of which he recruited - have the natural talent to take advantage of the situations that present themselves when you control possession and field position. take away his stars and his gameplan would stay exactly the same, only his team wouldnt be winning.

 

[Jeba]

Geez, if only Stu were coach, we'd win a Premiership each and every year. He makes it seem so easy :roll:

Stu, have a look at the Premiers since the NRL started in 1998.

1998 - Broncos
1999 - Storm
2000 - Broncos
2001- Knights
2002 - Roosters
2003 - Panthers
2004 - Bulldogs
2005 - Tigers
2006 - Broncos
2007 - Storm
2008 - Manly
2009 - Storm

Only 2 multiple Premiership winners there. What does that say to you? It should say that winning a Premiership these days is harder than it has ever been. Staying competitive for long periods of time is so friggen hard in the modern, and if you have a look at those teams again you will notice that the only team there that has made the finals in each of those years is the Broncos. No matter how good your players are, no matter how many rep players in your side, you can't achieve that sort of success for so long without a good coach. And if you disagree you are simply wrong and obviously have had no exposure to a coaching environment in a team sport. Go and coach an under 12's League side, pick the best players and tell them to do whatever they want out there. Your belief that they will simply go well based on the stars in their side should get them over the line? Mate they would get beaten 50-nil each week. You need good tactics, a game plan and a structure to work to.

How do you think we won the 2006 Grand Final? Did Wayne just pick the 1-17 and tell them to win? No, they had a game plan based largely on defence and shutting down Melbourne's most dangerous players, particularly Inglis and Smith. Towards the end of the first half the Storm were getting frustrated at not being able to break the Broncos' line and were trying risky plays out of desperation, without success. Wayne (and his other coaching staff obviously together with the players) devised a perfect game plan to win that game.

Wait why am I typing all this?

WE WON A PREMIERSHIP IN 2006 AND HAVE WON 3 PREMIERSHIPS SINCE 1998!!!!!! WTF IS YOUR FRIGGEN PROBLEM?????????

 

[Big Pete]

Your point is pretty funny though.

Say if Wally Lewis, for whatever reason decided to come out of retirement to save the Broncos, would that mean he's another star of the game? Because he was once a representative player?

 

[fenomeno]

[quote="The Rock":1dms889p]No, I didn't read it because I know that you're just going to think you're right all the time.

If you think Wayne is only a great recruiter and not a great "coach" then I'm going to leave it at that and let you embarrass yourself with those opinions that 99% of the rugby league community don't agree with (which means, 99% of the rugby league community don't know anything about league right, and you do? lolz)

There is just no point arguing with a crippled animal.

"No, I didn't read it because I know that you're just going to think you're right all the time. ".........kinda like you then hey? only i am actually right, because i dont watch rugby league with blinkers on like you do.

wayne bennett WAS a great coach. hes not now. hes an adequate coach provided he has good players. his gameplan with the dragons is simple, simple, simple, simple, simple. its working because the players there - some of which he recruited - have the natural talent to take advantage of the situations that present themselves when you control possession and field position. take away his stars and his gameplan would stay exactly the same, only his team wouldnt be winning.[/quote:1dms889p]

So Bennett WAS a great coach but not so much now according to you? So what happened to him? He got dumber? Did he just forget everything that made him a great coach like you said yourself?

Forget the players he had for a second, what makes him average now but great previously?

 

[QUEENSLANDER]

as i said earlier, bennet gets the best out of the players... he doesnt get the best out of the team.. there is a MASSIVE difference.

in 1 scenario u have good players with potential, and with bennets coaching they realise that and become stars

on the other hand you can have a team of good solid players but not stars, but good teamwork and tactics.

the latter means no matter who u have, u can still be competitive, the former relies on having players with the skills in the first place. i know which id prefer

Hang on, you can't just change your point of view to suit your argument. You have said in the past that the coach's role is purely to pick the best team and the rest will sort itself out. Now you've come out and said that it's about good teamwork and tactics as well. That is very much correct, but which is it???? Does he just pick the team or does he do more????

I dont know if ur getting me confused with someone else, but ive always said a coaches job is to motivate, recruit and come up with game plans. The game place bit sometimes comes last if you have the right players, which is what i said bennett has always had the benefit of having. The better the players, the less of a perfect game plan is needed. Once the orsm players start to move on, then it comes down to tactics. Its not rocket surgery mate

 

[Jeba]

as i said earlier, bennet gets the best out of the players... he doesnt get the best out of the team.. there is a MASSIVE difference.

in 1 scenario u have good players with potential, and with bennets coaching they realise that and become stars

on the other hand you can have a team of good solid players but not stars, but good teamwork and tactics.

the latter means no matter who u have, u can still be competitive, the former relies on having players with the skills in the first place. i know which id prefer

Hang on, you can't just change your point of view to suit your argument. You have said in the past that the coach's role is purely to pick the best team and the rest will sort itself out. Now you've come out and said that it's about good teamwork and tactics as well. That is very much correct, but which is it???? Does he just pick the team or does he do more????

I dont know if ur getting me confused with someone else, but ive always said a coaches job is to motivate, recruit and come up with game plans. The game place bit sometimes comes last if you have the right players, which is what i said bennett has always had the benefit of having. The better the players, the less of a perfect game plan is needed. Once the orsm players start to move on, then it comes down to tactics. Its not rocket surgery mate

Conveniently for you I can't find the thread, but it was in the thread where there was the massive debate about Shane Perry. If you find it I am certain you will see that you and AP said something along the lines of the coach's job as just having to pick the team.

But as Rock said, you can't be more wrong, and there are so many examples of you being wrong. The 1995 Origin series, the 2008 World Cup Final, St George teams from 2003-2006 (as Rocky said) etc etc etc. All the winners there had inferior teams on paper, so according to you the opposition would've needed a less perfect game plan. Well the writing's on the wall mate, look at the result.

 

[Anonymous person]

Look at St George from 2003-2006. They had the best players but no game plan because their coach was shit house. Even star studded teams need decent game plans.

St George had more stars back then than they do now and yet they're doing much better now....coincidence right?

they also only had their whole first choice team on the field for about 5 matches over those whole seasons too, but i suppose you conveniently forgot that right?

Oh so now you're admitting that he WAS a good coach? LOLZ. Do you know that we were originally debating with Chumba who said Wayne was never a good coach? That was the main argument here and now it seems you've changed it.

lol

no, i NEVER said that Wayne Bennett was never a good coach. i have ALWAYS said that he WAS the best coach up until 2000, but since then he has been nowhere near it. ask ANYONE other than your little group of buddies (beads, burg, jeb, draggx) if i have been saying that wayne bennett was never a great coach and youll find youre 100% wrong. hell, even my first post in this new thread was this:

to be fair, he didnt do that until many years after he'd stopped being the greatest coach in the comp.

youre getting yourself all confused in your state of outrage. if a coach is the best coach NOW it doesnt mean that he was the best coach 10 years ago. if a coach was the best coach 10 years ago it doesnt mean he is the best coach now. Wayne Bennett was the best coach, now hes not. its really not that hard to understand, but you sure seem to be having a crack at not understanding it [icon_lol1.

If Wayne's "simple" method of coaching was so easy, simple and basic to do, then why wouldn't more coaches do it? It works for St George, why wouldn't other teams try and follow it then?

again, youre making things up. did i criticize Bennetts 'simple' gameplan with the dragons? no. its working wonders for him at the moment. what i do criticize is his inability to come up with an alternative when that plan isnt working, or when they need to take it up to another level - like at finals time. like i said, it works for St George during the regular season, like it did for brisbane back in the nineties, but once you hit the finals unless you have the superstars like the broncos did back then, the gameplan falls flat - like it did for St George last year.

So Bennett WAS a great coach but not so much now according to you? So what happened to him? He got dumber? Did he just forget everything that made him a great coach like you said yourself?

Forget the players he had for a second, what makes him average now but great previously?

for crying out loud, have you even been reading any of my posts on the topic?

the game changed DRAMATICALLY when they got rid of the unlimited interchange. bennetts gameplan stayed the same, and it was completely ineffective. since 2000, more and more rule changes have taken place that change how the best teams play, but Bennetts gameplan has remained stagnant through it all.

Your point is pretty funny though.

Say if Wally Lewis, for whatever reason decided to come out of retirement to save the Broncos, would that mean he's another star of the game? Because he was once a representative player?

no, because hes old and hasnt played competitive sport for years. did luke priddis retire, stop playing footy because hes too old, then come back? no, he went to penrith, was their best player, won them a premiership, then didnt have the best few years in a team that was struggling. he was still a star player. its like if Darren Lockyer went to Souths, and souths still had a few bad seasons, then he came back to the Broncos - would you (and rocky) say that Darren Lockyer is not a star player just because he was at a team that was struggling? what a f$%^ing joke [icon_lol1.

Stu, have a look at the Premiers since the NRL started in 1998.

1998 - Broncos
1999 - Storm
2000 - Broncos
2001- Knights
2002 - Roosters
2003 - Panthers
2004 - Bulldogs
2005 - Tigers
2006 - Broncos
2007 - Storm
2008 - Manly
2009 - Storm

instead of that, lets look at the NRL premiers since the single biggest change in the game today, where Bennetts gameplan stopped being effective:

2001- Knights
2002 - Roosters
2003 - Panthers
2004 - Bulldogs
2005 - Tigers
2006 - Broncos
2007 - Storm
2008 - Manly
2009 - Storm

now the Broncos are only as good as 7 other teams - meaning that theyre in the top 8 teams. bennetts achievements in the years since the unlimited interchange was scrapped are no better than 7 other coaches achievements. but they sure are worse than some - Bellamy has 4 GFs in a row with 2 premierships, Hasler made 2 GFs in a row with 1 premiership. Ricky Stuart made 3 GFs in a row with 1 premiership. so that puts Bennetts 1 GF with 1 premiership inline with Michael Hagan, John Lang, Steve Folkes, and Tim Sheens.

after seeing that, how can you possibly say and think that Wayne Bennett is the best coach going around? like i said, since 2000 he has NOT been the best coach. before then he was.

Conveniently for you I can't find the thread

Jeb, you always use this excuse. 'oh i cant find it now', 'oh i deleted the message but i know you said it', 'oh i messaged you to come and meet up with me, its not my fault if i messaged the wrong phone number, you still shouldve come' - you make $hit up with no evidence to back up what youre saying. you especially always do it to Queenslander, often calling him out on things that I said and saying how hes a liar and going back on his word. this is another of those cases. look i know you dont like me and queenslander, and quite frankly neither of us care 1 bit - but on here you just constantly try to have goes at us by making up stuff that we havent even said lol. its really quite embarrassing to watch.

 

[Charmamba]

What dont drag me into this.

 

[QUEENSLANDER]

as i said earlier, bennet gets the best out of the players... he doesnt get the best out of the team.. there is a MASSIVE difference.

in 1 scenario u have good players with potential, and with bennets coaching they realise that and become stars

on the other hand you can have a team of good solid players but not stars, but good teamwork and tactics.

the latter means no matter who u have, u can still be competitive, the former relies on having players with the skills in the first place. i know which id prefer

Hang on, you can't just change your point of view to suit your argument. You have said in the past that the coach's role is purely to pick the best team and the rest will sort itself out. Now you've come out and said that it's about good teamwork and tactics as well. That is very much correct, but which is it???? Does he just pick the team or does he do more????

I dont know if ur getting me confused with someone else, but ive always said a coaches job is to motivate, recruit and come up with game plans. The game place bit sometimes comes last if you have the right players, which is what i said bennett has always had the benefit of having. The better the players, the less of a perfect game plan is needed. Once the orsm players start to move on, then it comes down to tactics. Its not rocket surgery mate

Conveniently for you I can't find the thread, but it was in the thread where there was the massive debate about Shane Perry. If you find it I am certain you will see that you and AP said something along the lines of the coach's job as just having to pick the team.

But as Rock said, you can't be more wrong, and there are so many examples of you being wrong. The 1995 Origin series, the 2008 World Cup Final, St George teams from 2003-2006 (as Rocky said) etc etc etc. All the winners there had inferior teams on paper, so according to you the opposition would've needed a less perfect game plan. Well the writing's on the wall mate, look at the result.

You guys are fucking idiots hey lol. I specifically said the game tactics SOMETIMES comes last if you have the right players. Obviously not all coaches are tactically inept like bennett, some have stars in their side as well as great tactical minds. I have no idea what any of those games have to do with anything lol..... a side that was worse on paper won.... so what? if anything, that backs up my statement by saying the game plan put in place worked perfectly. There was no way the 1995 QLD side shouldve won, but they went out with a gameplan that suited them to a tee. Obviously the game plan NSW had didnt work too well, since they lost. So how is that proving me wrong ? lol. One set of tactics worked, the tactics the better side played with, didnt. If anything u are proving me right lol.

Thats my fucking point. Obviously bennett has some kind of game plan, but often, he had the superior team on paper, and still managed to lose, because the other team just outplayed us. So many teams over the years have learnt how to deal with our style of play (post 2000). Other teams adapted their gamplans, we didnt.

 

[Flutterby]

Ok we've all had our say, we know everyone's views, no-one is going to change anyone's mind and once again a few people have taken over the thread and are repeating themselves, so I'm locking it. If you have anything genuinely new to add to the discussion, PM it to me. If you four want to carry on your personal discussion take it PM or elsewhere.