Hanley already coached the GB setup in 1994 - it didn't work then, and I don't see any reason why it would work now - the issue is the quality of players available, not the person at the helm.

Really? In that case why do we even bother having a coach/manager? Why dont australia just pick 17 men and tell them to do what they want?

Director of Football, not Coach,

I've got to be honest and say I half suspect the aussies could still beat us in a 3 game series if they did do that.

As to the facetiousness of your comment - you know very well what I mean. If you don't have the right quality of players available, the best coach in the world could not win a tournament for you, and by the end of it morons like yourself would be calling him a bad coach all of a sudden and calling for his head.

Tony Smith took a Huddersfield team that were utterly abysmal, and over the course of 2 years got them re-promoted to the SL and playing competetive RL to a reasonable standard by SL's standards - he then went to Leeds, who'd always had a good playing roster on paper but hadn't achieve anything for decades, and took them to a championship winning team in his first year - something which his predecessors could not manage.

Smith is not a bad coach - the quality of English players available for this tournament however, was unfortunately sub-par.

Yep, I agree with all that and have been saying it for ages.

However, to negate that, we have to have a set-up in place which enables us to take advantage if the Aussies (and to a lesser extent the Kiwis) have an off day against us. We can't match their quality but, in my opinion under David Waite (and to a lesser extent Noble until it all unravelled in the last tri-nations) we had an identifiable playing structure, whether we liked the style of it or not, which meant we were usually more competitive than we have been in this tournament, where Smith seems to have instilled nothing of the sort into his players - I can't think of any sort of gameplan that has been apparent in any of the matches.

Like I say I agree we don't have the quality, but that doesn't excuse the way we have played for most of this World Cup, being free and fluid might sound, and look, good when it comes off but when the opposition is significantly stronger that won't happen, it might work for him at Wire in 2010 but thats a different ball game altogether.

Which we and you would think T Smith already knew before we went out there

So you then have to come up with game plans and tactics to make you competitive

This he has completely failed to do

Clueless

Not a bad coach? Give over. He drops the only guy who has given us some direction in Sinfield, for a loser like Rob Purdham. Keeps faith with a fullback who in every game has been nothing short of abysmal and leaves Lee Smith out. Makes some absoultely stupid decisions last week against NZ, which cost us the game, which gave NZ the mental advantage in this game. Then he leaves out JJB/Hock for wilkin, who, although wasnt that bad this game, has been shocking the whole tournament.

He is as bad a coach I have seen for a long time.

Yep - I do agree with you, but as to the game plan and playing structure, I'm not sure - we've seen and heard players in the past put their hands up and admit that the coach told them what to do but the players just didn't produce it on the field (oddly this happens a lot at Warrington, and it's usually Briers who owns up to it, too), so I'd be interested to see some of the English players interviews that should be coming up over the next week or two.

As far as working for him at wire .... That's the style they already play from the Cullen era, and it's very much confidence based (and relies a lot on defences falling apart too!), which can see big winning runs, followed by big losing runs - I'd quite welcome a bit of structure and control in Warrington's game plan for the coming season! Hopefully Lowes' thoughts on RL are more akin to Brian Smith's style from when he was at Bradford!

Yes he should, that line up he put out today was bordering on the riddiculous. You have only 1 prop for the bench so what does the muppet go and do? He goes and sticks a stand off on the bench when he already has a hooker there! Utterly clueless, even Millward wouldnt do such a thing.