@mike I have said many times that I was happy to give him more time, yes I had issues with his coaching but I had seen some improvements this season. I am not happy that he was fired but can understand the reasons given for the club going in the direction it has.
Let’s move on then.
The discussion is not about Maguire, that’s history now, it’s about what we do next.
The discussion by the club about the need for a development coach is pure spin. I’ve posted elsewhere why I think it was used.
Development is in the meaning of the word coach.
“to provide training and guidance or help prepare someone for something”
To use the term development coach is meaningless. It’s like ATM machine. You are saying the same thing twice Automatic Teller Machine Machine. The definition of a coach is development. By saying we need a development coach you (I don’t mean you specifically) are saying we need a coach coach.
Maybe some coaches are better at coaching than others but that’s a different argument. But a development coach is just mythical nonsense.
The context in which it was used was saying that we need a coach who can take guys that are about to debut and introduce them to the NRL in a way that allows them to continue their development into regular 1st graders and beyond. Not just work with already established players.
So a coach that is good at coaching then. This seems to me what you are saying.
Look if that is the way you want to word it, the club decided they wanted a good coach and that Madge wasn't that. That is your wording and not mine.
In memory of Geoff Chisholm (1965-2022)
@mike I have said many times that I was happy to give him more time, yes I had issues with his coaching but I had seen some improvements this season. I am not happy that he was fired but can understand the reasons given for the club going in the direction it has.
Let’s move on then.
The discussion is not about Maguire, that’s history now, it’s about what we do next.
The discussion by the club about the need for a development coach is pure spin. I’ve posted elsewhere why I think it was used.
Development is in the meaning of the word coach.
“to provide training and guidance or help prepare someone for something”
To use the term development coach is meaningless. It’s like ATM machine. You are saying the same thing twice Automatic Teller Machine Machine. The definition of a coach is development. By saying we need a development coach you (I don’t mean you specifically) are saying we need a coach coach.
Maybe some coaches are better at coaching than others but that’s a different argument. But a development coach is just mythical nonsense.
The context in which it was used was saying that we need a coach who can take guys that are about to debut and introduce them to the NRL in a way that allows them to continue their development into regular 1st graders and beyond. Not just work with already established players.
So a coach that is good at coaching then. This seems to me what you are saying.
I think that's a fairly simplistic view. In the NRL there are a few different type of coaches and they each have their pros and cons. Bennett for instance is good at taking a contender and taking them up a level, but not building for the future. Then there are coaches like Brian Smith and Neil Henry who are/were good at taking poor teams, and rebuilding them to be very good teams (although they couldn't get to that next stage ie Premiership). Then you have someone like a Bellamy who relies on pathways and developing junior talent to make up a large part of the squad, with purchasing players here and there to plug holes.
The square peg in a round hole comment came from Sheens because he's trying to create a system focused on juniors and pathways (development club) and Madge isn't that sort of coach.
Bollocks. Nothing simplistic about it at all. It’s not the NRL coaches job to be focused on pathways and juniors, that the clubs role and in our case now Sheens.
The NRL coaches job is well, to coach the NRL team to victory and ultimately a premiership as often as possible.
It’s every coaches job to get the best out of their players. That’s the job by definition. Some are better at it than others.
@mike I have said many times that I was happy to give him more time, yes I had issues with his coaching but I had seen some improvements this season. I am not happy that he was fired but can understand the reasons given for the club going in the direction it has.
Let’s move on then.
The discussion is not about Maguire, that’s history now, it’s about what we do next.
The discussion by the club about the need for a development coach is pure spin. I’ve posted elsewhere why I think it was used.
Development is in the meaning of the word coach.
“to provide training and guidance or help prepare someone for something”
To use the term development coach is meaningless. It’s like ATM machine. You are saying the same thing twice Automatic Teller Machine Machine. The definition of a coach is development. By saying we need a development coach you (I don’t mean you specifically) are saying we need a coach coach.
Maybe some coaches are better at coaching than others but that’s a different argument. But a development coach is just mythical nonsense.
The context in which it was used was saying that we need a coach who can take guys that are about to debut and introduce them to the NRL in a way that allows them to continue their development into regular 1st graders and beyond. Not just work with already established players.
So a coach that is good at coaching then. This seems to me what you are saying.
Look if that is the way you want to word it, the club decided they wanted a good coach and that Madge wasn't that. That is your wording and not mine.
You said it not me and at least you are being honest now.
@mike I have said many times that I was happy to give him more time, yes I had issues with his coaching but I had seen some improvements this season. I am not happy that he was fired but can understand the reasons given for the club going in the direction it has.
Let’s move on then.
The discussion is not about Maguire, that’s history now, it’s about what we do next.
The discussion by the club about the need for a development coach is pure spin. I’ve posted elsewhere why I think it was used.
Development is in the meaning of the word coach.
“to provide training and guidance or help prepare someone for something”
To use the term development coach is meaningless. It’s like ATM machine. You are saying the same thing twice Automatic Teller Machine Machine. The definition of a coach is development. By saying we need a development coach you (I don’t mean you specifically) are saying we need a coach coach.
Maybe some coaches are better at coaching than others but that’s a different argument. But a development coach is just mythical nonsense.
The context in which it was used was saying that we need a coach who can take guys that are about to debut and introduce them to the NRL in a way that allows them to continue their development into regular 1st graders and beyond. Not just work with already established players.
So a coach that is good at coaching then. This seems to me what you are saying.
I think that's a fairly simplistic view. In the NRL there are a few different type of coaches and they each have their pros and cons. Bennett for instance is good at taking a contender and taking them up a level, but not building for the future. Then there are coaches like Brian Smith and Neil Henry who are/were good at taking poor teams, and rebuilding them to be very good teams (although they couldn't get to that next stage ie Premiership). Then you have someone like a Bellamy who relies on pathways and developing junior talent to make up a large part of the squad, with purchasing players here and there to plug holes.
The square peg in a round hole comment came from Sheens because he's trying to create a system focused on juniors and pathways (development club) and Madge isn't that sort of coach.
Bollocks. Nothing simplistic about it at all. It’s not the NRL coaches job to be focused on pathways and juniors, that the clubs role and in our case now Sheens.
The NRL coaches job is well, to coach the NRL team to victory and ultimately a premiership as often as possible.
It’s every coaches job to get the best out of their players. That’s the job by definition. Some are better at it than others.
Ok cool, so If the NRL coaches job is to coach the NRL team to victory then wouldn't you agree a 28% winning percentage is grounds for termination?
@mike I have said many times that I was happy to give him more time, yes I had issues with his coaching but I had seen some improvements this season. I am not happy that he was fired but can understand the reasons given for the club going in the direction it has.
Let’s move on then.
The discussion is not about Maguire, that’s history now, it’s about what we do next.
The discussion by the club about the need for a development coach is pure spin. I’ve posted elsewhere why I think it was used.
Development is in the meaning of the word coach.
“to provide training and guidance or help prepare someone for something”
To use the term development coach is meaningless. It’s like ATM machine. You are saying the same thing twice Automatic Teller Machine Machine. The definition of a coach is development. By saying we need a development coach you (I don’t mean you specifically) are saying we need a coach coach.
Maybe some coaches are better at coaching than others but that’s a different argument. But a development coach is just mythical nonsense.
The context in which it was used was saying that we need a coach who can take guys that are about to debut and introduce them to the NRL in a way that allows them to continue their development into regular 1st graders and beyond. Not just work with already established players.
So a coach that is good at coaching then. This seems to me what you are saying.
I think that's a fairly simplistic view. In the NRL there are a few different type of coaches and they each have their pros and cons. Bennett for instance is good at taking a contender and taking them up a level, but not building for the future. Then there are coaches like Brian Smith and Neil Henry who are/were good at taking poor teams, and rebuilding them to be very good teams (although they couldn't get to that next stage ie Premiership). Then you have someone like a Bellamy who relies on pathways and developing junior talent to make up a large part of the squad, with purchasing players here and there to plug holes.
The square peg in a round hole comment came from Sheens because he's trying to create a system focused on juniors and pathways (development club) and Madge isn't that sort of coach.
Bollocks. Nothing simplistic about it at all. It’s not the NRL coaches job to be focused on pathways and juniors, that the clubs role and in our case now Sheens.
The NRL coaches job is well, to coach the NRL team to victory and ultimately a premiership as often as possible.
It’s every coaches job to get the best out of their players. That’s the job by definition. Some are better at it than others.
Ok cool, so If the NRL coaches job is to coach the NRL team to victory then wouldn't you agree a 28% winning percentage is grounds for termination?
Not necessarily, context is king.
@mike I have said many times that I was happy to give him more time, yes I had issues with his coaching but I had seen some improvements this season. I am not happy that he was fired but can understand the reasons given for the club going in the direction it has.
Let’s move on then.
The discussion is not about Maguire, that’s history now, it’s about what we do next.
The discussion by the club about the need for a development coach is pure spin. I’ve posted elsewhere why I think it was used.
Development is in the meaning of the word coach.
“to provide training and guidance or help prepare someone for something”
To use the term development coach is meaningless. It’s like ATM machine. You are saying the same thing twice Automatic Teller Machine Machine. The definition of a coach is development. By saying we need a development coach you (I don’t mean you specifically) are saying we need a coach coach.
Maybe some coaches are better at coaching than others but that’s a different argument. But a development coach is just mythical nonsense.
The context in which it was used was saying that we need a coach who can take guys that are about to debut and introduce them to the NRL in a way that allows them to continue their development into regular 1st graders and beyond. Not just work with already established players.
So a coach that is good at coaching then. This seems to me what you are saying.
Look if that is the way you want to word it, the club decided they wanted a good coach and that Madge wasn't that. That is your wording and not mine.
You said it not me and at least you are being honest now.
No I think Madge is a good coach in the right sort of situation and the right sort of players. I think we need a coach with different strengths than madge. I'll end this here as you are just arguing semantics at this point.
In memory of Geoff Chisholm (1965-2022)
@unhappy-tiger tell them it will be ciraldo simple
Why do you think they would like being coached by a rookie?
Yeah ...but he is probably a player whisperer .......why not Slater then ...the raps around him are big and probably half the price
I would probably take Slater if we could get him, he has impressed me the last week or so.
Slater is the opposite of a development coach" surely?
The idea of a development coach is pure spin. You don’t develop them in NRL, they are developed before that so they can play at the NRL. NRL coaching is all about people management with some skill fine tuning. Sheens is talking bollocks.
Yeah, once you reach NRL you are complete player
You clearly didn’t read or understand my post. Some fine tuning for sure. The development coach statements are pure bollocks.
So there shouldn't really be players who career's end after 30-100 games or State of Origin players should be playing at that level as soon as they enter grade. That development is more than fine tuning, I wonder why players go to the Storm and very quickly become better player, not just one or two of them but the majority of players that enter that system. Bellamy must just be an excellent fine tuner. There is a massive difference between the player Brad Fittler was when he entered grade and by the time he was 30, Phil Gould mustn't have had anything to do with that growth as a more complete player. The only reason that Luke Brooks never reached the potential he had when he entered the NRL was a lack of fine tuning? It had nothing to do with having a series of different coaches and inexperienced halves partners that hampered his development.
Players continue to develop throughout their career, as do people in any profession, some coaches and leaders are better at helping people reach their full potential than others. Are you saying you didn't develop over your career through mentorship and guidance? That having great mentors didn't make a big difference in your professional and personal development?
I find it staggering that people can not see the difference that great mentorship, coaching and training can have on individuals and their development. I am the person I am now and profess the skills, attributes and abilities that I have due to great mentorship and coaching throughout my life. An NRL player can develop massively over their career, especially the first few years, if that wasn't true we wouldn't have players that arrive on the scene as the next big thing that fade away into oblivion or players that develop slower through their careers. We would all be able to identify very easily which players would make it on their debut game. Some coaches are better at supporting that positive growth in players, some coaches are better at accepting the errors and ups and downs that come with developing players, some coaches are willing to give younger players an opportunity and a chance. Then there are some coaches that don't provide this environment that is conductive to players becoming better players, to growing.
Yeah people management includes mentoring and guidance. Like I said you didn’t understand my response.
When you get to NRL level you are an NRL player or you shouldn’t be there. With the addition to above it is absolutely fine tuning skills from then on.
Now to get to the bottom line I believed you think Maguire did not have these abilities. I strongly disagree (no surprise there).
The concept of a development coach at the NRL level is pure and simple spin. The need for a mythical development coach was portrayed to help the fan base and sponsors except the decision to sack Maguire. It has nothing todo with who the next coach will be. If Wests Tigers management think it does then they have no clue. Which would be pretty well on par with their previous behaviour.
Lol, so you disagree with the label the club used to describe it, the club very clearly have decided that Maguire doesn't have the skills required. I still disagree that taking a fringe 1st grader and turning them into a regular 1st grader, then rep player and leader is more than fine tuning. I have spend most of my career developing teachers and leaders.
Why as a club are we not developing rep players or leaders? Why haven't guys like Liddle, Garner, nofa, Mikaele and Brooks kick on? Why did it take the introduction of Hastings for Twal to go to a new level.
Tim Sheens has decided that Maguire is unable to take players to that next level and wants a coach who can. You are arguing about the term development because you are unhappy the coach was fired.
The last thing I will state is an environment where the leader is ranting, screaming and swearing is not a great environment for players who are learning to be first graders and I think that was part of the point Sheens was making.
You are arguing about the term development because you are happy Maguire was sacked. See I can put words in your mouth as well.
Cut the crap and be honest.
Ill be honest. I think the term "development coach" is a new buzz word, but i think that there are coachs who excel at developing players to be better than they otherwise would be and there are coach that excel at taking team of good players to play well as a team to good tactics/training etc. Some that do both.
Sheens, Robinson, Bellamy, Bennett, Ciraldo (unproved, but on the face of it) are development coaches.
@mike I have said many times that I was happy to give him more time, yes I had issues with his coaching but I had seen some improvements this season. I am not happy that he was fired but can understand the reasons given for the club going in the direction it has.
Let’s move on then.
The discussion is not about Maguire, that’s history now, it’s about what we do next.
The discussion by the club about the need for a development coach is pure spin. I’ve posted elsewhere why I think it was used.
Development is in the meaning of the word coach.
“to provide training and guidance or help prepare someone for something”
To use the term development coach is meaningless. It’s like ATM machine. You are saying the same thing twice Automatic Teller Machine Machine. The definition of a coach is development. By saying we need a development coach you (I don’t mean you specifically) are saying we need a coach coach.
Maybe some coaches are better at coaching than others but that’s a different argument. But a development coach is just mythical nonsense.
Maybe some coaches are better at certain aspects of coaching than others, like tactics, management of the bench, injury management or...............development of junior/inexperienced players into good established first graders.
What you seem to be upset about is semantics Mike. If Sheens didnt say we want a 'development coach" but instead said we want a coach who is stronger at developing junior and inexperienced players into good first graders....would you have been happier?
@mike I have said many times that I was happy to give him more time, yes I had issues with his coaching but I had seen some improvements this season. I am not happy that he was fired but can understand the reasons given for the club going in the direction it has.
Let’s move on then.
The discussion is not about Maguire, that’s history now, it’s about what we do next.
The discussion by the club about the need for a development coach is pure spin. I’ve posted elsewhere why I think it was used.
Development is in the meaning of the word coach.
“to provide training and guidance or help prepare someone for something”
To use the term development coach is meaningless. It’s like ATM machine. You are saying the same thing twice Automatic Teller Machine Machine. The definition of a coach is development. By saying we need a development coach you (I don’t mean you specifically) are saying we need a coach coach.
Maybe some coaches are better at coaching than others but that’s a different argument. But a development coach is just mythical nonsense.
Maybe some coaches are better at certain aspects of coaching than others, like tactics, management of the bench, injury management or...............development of junior/inexperienced players into good established first graders.
What you seem to be upset about is semantics Mike. If Sheens didnt say we want a 'development coach" but instead said we want a coach who is stronger at developing junior and inexperienced players into good first graders....would you have been happier?
I would have preferred Sheens to be honest and not use spin.
@mike I have said many times that I was happy to give him more time, yes I had issues with his coaching but I had seen some improvements this season. I am not happy that he was fired but can understand the reasons given for the club going in the direction it has.
Let’s move on then.
The discussion is not about Maguire, that’s history now, it’s about what we do next.
The discussion by the club about the need for a development coach is pure spin. I’ve posted elsewhere why I think it was used.
Development is in the meaning of the word coach.
“to provide training and guidance or help prepare someone for something”
To use the term development coach is meaningless. It’s like ATM machine. You are saying the same thing twice Automatic Teller Machine Machine. The definition of a coach is development. By saying we need a development coach you (I don’t mean you specifically) are saying we need a coach coach.
Maybe some coaches are better at coaching than others but that’s a different argument. But a development coach is just mythical nonsense.
Maybe some coaches are better at certain aspects of coaching than others, like tactics, management of the bench, injury management or...............development of junior/inexperienced players into good established first graders.
What you seem to be upset about is semantics Mike. If Sheens didnt say we want a 'development coach" but instead said we want a coach who is stronger at developing junior and inexperienced players into good first graders....would you have been happier?
I would have preferred Sheens to be honest and not use spin.
Seems to me to be a fact that we can not compete with other clubs (not even Bulldogs) when it comes to signing established players let alone stars and therefore other than curling into a ball and giving up, developing juniors and inexperienced players is our only option.
Seems to me that Sheens is actually doing his job, which is my preference.
