It's the leader's job to get the best out of the team and individuals, to make them want to give their best. It is not the team members duty to follow and apply themselves blindly. Are you thinking about the difference between a manager and a leader?

Given the team is made up of a number of highly skilled players, many of whom have played at higher levels of the game than the current level of performance I have to wonder if Noble's style of play and coaching is the problem. Not because of the "it doesn't work" arguments, but simply because it makes turning up for work boring.

Imagine if you had a job that allowed you to enjoy your work and you had a reasonable level of freedom, new boss arrives and removes large chunks of the fun part and enforces some rigid structure, would you still be enthused at work or would you just be turning up and going through the motions?

Following the above makes you at best, a drone who won't progress, at worst, a sheep.

You've a lot to learn about the workplace pal.

If you're given an instruction by your boss (rugby coach or office manager)...

and you understand/like it - you get on with it.
and you don't understand it - you ask for clarification
and you don't agree with it - you can present a credible alternative.
and you don't like it - you can present a credible alternative, get on with it or get out.

Any Manager worth his salt will listen to employee suggestions, consider them on their merits and provide a suitable response, i.e. invoke the new proposals or continue with the currently methodology while explaining the the employee the merits of the existing system and the disadvantage(s) to the proposal.

Any Manager who fails to consider the suggestions of an employee is a) dictatorial and b) and bloody fool.

I think Lockers not urging the players on to form the scrum to stop the clock is a fair criticism of his captaincy. It has nothing to do with BN.

By the way, the same thing happened v Saints at least once later on in the game. No urgency to get to the scrum when behind.

If the players are too knackered to get a move on then that is an off field problem due to lack of fitness but I think this excuse isn't a very realistic one.

Dave

not often i do this, but i agree with justin morgan. 2 games in 3 or 4 days is too much.

Saints had Leeds sunday us thursday then Hull Monday yet no complaints, why? Because they won all 3 games. Says it all to me.

I know what you're saying, but we dont know what damage it has done to the players? In such an impact sport i dont think its a great idea

What year was it when we played four matches in about eight days at the end of a season ?

In the commentary against Catalan, Eddie Hemmings and Terry O'Connor saying how tired Pat Richards looked

Eddie: "look at his face, he looks shattered"

Terry: "yes that was a very lazy attempt at the goal kick, he must be tired"

Thing is, Richards didnt even play on Thursday so had over a week to recover from your CC game at Barrow. At the end of the day, yes we all agree too many matches over Easter, but its the same for everyone and it comes down to who is prepared to dig the deepest for victory when the going gets tough.

Richards passed a fitness test on the day didn't he? Probably a miracle that he actually made it onto the field, never mind putting the performance he put in. A lot of our players should look at Richards because he rarely does anything wrong.

IIRC Richards didn't play in this game either.