What he said.

I don't know who it was who first came up with this idea the fact the squad wasn't his was a factor but whoever it was they are IMO a prize idiot and a master of excuses.

He is a coach and as with every coach when he takes over a team he is expected to coach the players he has and get results form them, not bide his time for three or four years while contracts expire.

If the fact it has not been his team has really been a problem for him it is as damning an indictment of his coaching ability an any you can care to think of because it basically means he is incapable of coaching players who do not fit into his mould.



What results are these? Worse in 2008 than 2007 in the cup. Negative points difference? A couple of wins in the play-offs but knowing full well it was not going to end in a GF appearance?

Dave

How is this thread still going, his record is immense, end of.

I'm not as anti Noble as some on here. I appreciate what he's done for us and his past record at Bradford speaks for itself.

Some people see its purely black and white they are either anit Noble or Pro Noble and it's not that simple for me.

For me tho the points Dave's made above are all extremely valid and concerns that i share with him.

We aren't an attacking or creative team you have to admit. Even with Carmont, Barrett, Tommy & Richards in our back line we fail to set the league alive. Did we not have a negative points diff last season? That's proof in itself for me of the negative style we play.

Can Noble really provide us with an attacking style of rugby? Yes our current style may beat Leeds or Saints once or twice a season but the best attacking sides in the end prevail hence why we've lost to Leeds three times in the last two years when it really mattered two play off semis and one CC quarter final. Saints have also ripped us to shreads far to many times as we can’t live with our style. We have and have had players that are equal to their Saints counter parts but the system lets them down.

His junior selection sometimes isn’t as bad as some think IMO. Prescott, Goulding and Mcilorum all got a fair crack of the whip last season all Nobles choice as well and his hand wasn’t forced as it was with Joel. Tomkins or Mcilorum should have been playing tomorrow tho IMO and I personally think Noble is to cautious sometimes for his own good. I do think Tomkins will get game time this season but tomorrow was the right time to introduce him. For some reason i can just see his first game being Warrington, Leeds or Saints wasy for some reason.

My real main problem tho is the Likes of Mossop, Farrell, Ainscough and the fact that they aren’t going to see much if any first team action this season. These three are prime candidates to go out on loan like Saints have done with their youngsters who aren’t going to get game time as they are wasted in the reserves.

I’d also like to add another point to the ones DaveO mentioned. This Wigan side is very, very inconsistent and fails to get up for the so called lesser teams. Yes his teams peak at the right time but in some respects its to late by then as the challenge is insurmountable IMO hence why we always fail at the semifinal stage. In order to go that extra game you have to get in a better position by winning more league games in the season.

It’s not all doom and gloom but also there are some things wrong with Noble’s time so far as Wigan coach. I do worry about the development of players at our club under him. Not if they will get game time as eventually I do think he’ll give them all a shot but if they will be ready when it comes round. You have to admit the Saints youngsters will be stood in better stead when they get their chance as they’ve been forced out of the academy comfort zone and gone on loan.

Have you not read anything that has been said on this thread?

I do not want to enter into this debate, but what I will say is that I agree with points made by both sides For and Against.

JonH, it is a massive year for Noble but also the club as a whole. We were crying out for stability a few years ago, we still need that. So does it make sense to sack the coach? Not in my opinion, but your's and many othe posters are different.

I'm not anti-noble, all I am is pro-stability. We can't just presume the likes of Hanley and Edwards would be an instant success, Hanley has walked out of his past two jobs. who's to say he wouldn't walk out of Wigan if he got the job?

As for Edwards, as I never watch RU and thus am unaware of his coaching credentials, I cannot make a comment nor really form an opinion except that it is a risk to employ a relatively un-experienced RL coach at Wigan. (I know of his playing credentials, but that won't make him a good coach, i.e Paul Ince)

As said, I agree with points made by both sides but surely we must all agree that in order for Wigan to win a trophy, we need stability.

Interesting.

Dave O , I will post the holes in your argument tomorrow. Bit too tired atm.


There are many though.

You do realise that by your way of judging coaches, Brian Smith was/is next to useless.

Anybody who judges a coach simply by the trophies a team won is seriously misguided. On that basis all but 1 or 2 coaches would be deemed failures year in year out.

Is Brian Smith a bad coach? NO he is highly rated but what has he won? What has Neil Henry won? Nothing domestically yet he is an outstanding coach. In terms of winning something when Queensland win Origin you will see Mal Meninga as the coach but the real coach is Henry. Mal is more of a manager.

So how is it Neil Henry never wins anything domestically which by some very naive views on here makes him a failure yet he is outstanding at Origin level (the best standard of RL in the World). Likewise why is Brian Smith so in demand?

COACHES ARE CORRECTLY JUDGED ON 2 THINGS

1) Player development. Some coaches will never have the opportunity to coach a great group of players. Some will. Hence, it makes the use of silverware as a measure very flawed. Coaches asked to be judged on how they developed the playing resources available to them. How the improved those players individually/collectively. We are talking about all age levels from the young to the experienced players.

2) What they inherited in terms of a team and what they left behind. Inherited Legacy and Legacy giftd to the new incming coach.

On both measures Noble fails.

If you do not ant to accept it, please explain how in 2008 we witnessed the most vitriolic condemnation of a coach ever. IL by association ridiculed Brian Noble when he castigated the players. Those 7 deadly sins all refelected an inability of the coach to produce a Wigan RL team. YOU, the fans similarly castigated Noble when for the first time that I can remember Wigan RL fans screamed you are not fit to wear the shirt.

How in Gods name can any sane Wigan fan come here and say we made progress in 2008 when the owner rubbished the playing side of the club and the fans rubbished the playing side of the club. Many even voted with their feet and attendances declined. Week after week fans left Wigan games dismayed at the woeful standard of RL being produced.

Open your eyes, engage your brains for pity sake

Mick Potter won nothing with Catalan but he by common consent over achieved. He was hailed as a good coach. He landed a great new job. his own club did not want him to go. Brian Noble had a squad that was as good as any in SL. Certainly far better than all but 2. Yet he underachieved. His potential legacy is very poor.

As for Bradford - Peter Deacon, Brian Smith created a great legacy for future coaches. It could be argued that Carl Jennings was far more important in creating the Bradford monster than Brian Noble.

I really AM tired now and am loathe to post.

However, you make it so easy for me.


Coaches are judged on 1 thing. RESULTS.


To suggest otherwise is in the best case naiive.