sally cinnamon wrote:Whoever is linked with the club, people will find reasons to be negative.
When Leeds appointed Brian McLennan people said he was a good international coach but wouldn't be able to transfer that to the domestic game (Paul Youane remembers that one)
When Saints appointed Daniel Anderson there were people pointing to his shocking international record in charge of the Kiwis, he had finished bottom of the Tri Nations the year before when Noble's GB were far better than his Kiwi team (although McLennan managed to win the Tri Nations with them the next season). And also apparently appointing Anderson was a gamble because he falls out with people, he caused trouble at the Warriors and quit them after loads of players left the club because they didn't like him. Anderson was supposedly going to cause trouble at Saints and it would all end in tears....but a Super League title, three Challenge Cups and a WCC wasn't a bad record for three and a half seasons work.
At the end of the day there is an element of the unknown in any coaching appointment, it is always going to be a calculated gamble. But Hanley, Smith, Folkes, and so on are far less a gamble than appointing Lowes, who had no experience other than being an assistant in a Salford team which got relegated, and Cullen's Warrington.
Spot on. It is a gamble, and a new coach isn't a guarantee of success.
This is one of the reasons I think it is really difficult to rate how good coaches are. Sometimes, with a class coach, things just all fit into place, and everything works for them. They then move to a new club, and things just don't work.
I would be looking for a coach who has won things, but who has also been to more than one club and had success at the top level.
How many coaches fit into that mould though?
I would be happy with any of the ones that you named above, at least they have won something.