So let me get this right, me saying he failed and you countering it with no he didn't isn't arguing against my points. If we had both started with, "In my opinion" then there is no argument but we both didn't so we are arguing.



How on earth am I unbiased? Don't forget the team are the ones on the pitch, yes the coach will have a hand in it and the shape of the team on the day suggested a strong platform but as you will know every one of those players were pumped up for the day so their own motivations would have helped.



We are still talking about the same man who was worse than useless at your club? I admire you being able to put that to one side, too much in my belief as you see something in him that I don't. As I said, I could have coached England to beat Italy and Ireland and Fiji and France. I wouldn't have needed to motivate them for the opener or SF, more bring them back down by calming influence as I am sure they were ready to explode such were the events.



And I could have drilled them with set plays until the cows came home so they understood how I wanted them to play but, and it is a big but, I would have worked out my best six and seven sometime in the three years before the tournament and worked with them. He made a horrendous choice (IMO) in playing Chase throughout that time. McNamara used a strong structured approach to play on the pitch, when you have Chase being interviewed after the Aus game talking about having to adapt his game to it, after 3 years of being in the team, something is very wrong. That is where the coach should be accounted for.



I am not blinded by loyalty to think he has been anything better than expected. You or I could have done what he has done and he has spent his life in the pro arm of the game whereas we are keyboard warriors debating this. That to me tells me all I need to know about McNamara. Not good enough.

I'm not arguing with you. At best we are exchanging opinions. I wouldn't waste my time arguing with someone who's not listening.





On the contrary I presumed you are biased, biased against McNamara. Just a feeling.







What? Are there people who do forget this? Personally, can't say I've ever found it confusing. Well, there was this one game at Odsal when the fog suddenly rolled in. But no, even then I don't think I forgot that the team were the ones on the pitch. I couldn't always confirm it with my own eyes, but even then, I never really doubted it.





Look, this is a total non-point, so give it up. Both teams will be "pumped up". Therefore this "pumping up" pretty much cancels out, wouldn't it be fair to say? One job of the coach is to make sure that being pumped up doesn't adversely affect performance, and to make sure that the adrenalin is channelled in the right direction, at the right time.





See, there'syour bias, right there. This thread is NOTHING about McNamara's performance as a club coach and anything he did or didn't do at Bradford surely has zero bearing on anyone's views on thsi thread. But not yours, I gather.





I admire your chutzpah, but with respect it is outrageously ridiculous for you to claim that you would have been able to coach an international team, or that the players would have had even a gram of respect for you. I refuse to address such a ludicrous proposition further.





He decided Chase would be scrum half and went with it. That is a decision any coach has to make. However the thread is not about Rangi Chase, but how good a job McNamara did. You can argue you wouldn't personally have picked Chase, but you can't argue that Chase isn't amongst the most talented half backs available and picking him, or any of them, is hardly something that is self-evidently "wrong".





You may be deluded enough to believe you could have. I'm not.





I'm no keyboard warrior, I do my best to stick to reasoned debate and argument. It doesn't always work. Nevertheless, as a (very) notable and distinguished player and a man who has both played and coached at the highest professional level in this country, he certainly knows a damn sight more about coaching than you or I and if you really think you could have done as well as him then I'm sorry, but you really do need to take a reality check..

But who's fault was it that Burgess was still out there when he could barely stand? I though all this technology was suppose to tell Mcnamara when his performance levels had dropped. I'm not a coach but EvenI could tell Burgess was shot, while we had a fresh Ablett twiddling in his thumbs on the bench.



We had an excellent SQUAD. To have a player sat on the bench in a game like that is criminal.

Daryl Powell, although a tremendous coach at Fev, needs to prove himself at a higher domestic level, before he is even worthy of a mention for England coach.

He may well be the guy to take charge at some point in the future, but not yet.



McNamara did ok but, Sinfield and Chase in the halves always looked poor and although Sinfield did ok, that's all it was, ok and Chase was mickey poor. Widdop looked twice the player that Chase was.



7/10 could do better

He decided Chase would be scrum half and went with it. That is a decision any coach has to make. However the thread is not about Rangi Chase, but how good a job McNamara did. You can argue you wouldn't personally have picked Chase, but you can't argue that Chase isn't amongst the most talented half backs available and picking him, or any of them, is hardly something that is self-evidently "wrong".



Aardvark,



It is the coach's responsibility to identify flaws in his squad. That it took him three years and he only awoke to the fact at the SF stage is a massive negative to McNamara. Using Chase as an argument in this thread is valid as I try to prove my point on McNamara.



If he is that good, as he is in your eyes, why isn't he getting bombarded with job offers from inside SuperLeague? The silence from the clubs is deafening.



And as for my point about him being rubbish at club level, look how well Mick Potter went after he took over, even with financial meltdown the players stuck by the coach and played for him throughout that time, even when he and they weren't getting money for it.



If I am biased against him you are surely the complete opposite and for the love of money I cannot understand why.

Or would be, if it was true he suddenly woke up one day and thought, "OMG, I should never have gone with Chase". Whereas in fact you have no idea if that's the case. McNamara said he picked the squad for the game with the combination that he thought was best for that game. Do you have any information that he is lying? Please share.





Except that I simply don't accept your premise that McNamara suddenly saw the light, as you would have it. I also point to the fact that the combination worked, and it and we did more than enough to have won.





You have no clue who he or his agent have spoken to, and as he has already been signed for a well paid job in Onion, it doesn't even arise as he's not available - I assume this deal was a done deal long ago, and doubt he has ever been available.





Yep, Potter never making the playoffs was a huge improvement, but again why are you doing your best to deflect the thread away from the topic of how good a job McNamara did for England? Are you having to privately concede that he actually did a decent job?





Where is my bias? If you want to discuss or oppose what I have said, do so, if you can. They are valid and perfectly arguable points, and, unlike you, I am sticking to the point.



I do notice though that you've quietly and wisely chosen to bury your ridiculous claim that you could have coached England as well or better.

But if he thought the Widdop/Sinfield partnership was the one to beat NZ, why didnt he give them game time against non opposition such as Ireland/Fiji/France. Don't tell me he chose "a team to beat Ireland" because Graham as stand off would have resulted in us beating Ireland. Those games should have been used for Sinfield &Widdop to gel if he thought that was the combination to beat NZ.



The fact he used Chase/Sinfield at every opportunity he has had, and then changed it before the game against NZ after Sinfield/Chase had very little impact on the tournament suggests to me he realised it wasn't working when a side gets a new half back, you always hear everyone talking about giving them time to gel. To then play a new combination in a WC semi shows incompetence from Mcnamara. We should have never been on that situation

My claim was that anyone could have done an equal job to him during the WC and anyone would have picked a side that could beat Italy. Not gonna let that one lie, it is the truth. Doesn't matter if the players like you or not, if you pick the right combinations you shouldn't ever lose against a team like Italy.

I assumed (but don't know) that there was more to Chase being dropped than was made public> If there wasn't, then I agree you'd expect them to be given game time on the face of it, but England clearly didn't suffer as a result of them not having had that game time.





Perfectly possible too, and if so, then what do you do? Stick with it even if for whatever reason it isn't working, or change it?





IF Chase was dropped solely because he wasn't playing well enough, what are you saying? Chase had mostly been playing out of his socks all 2013, are you saying McNamara should have somehow mystically known that come the WC Chase's form would go down the pan? How? Mystic Meg? How would it be "incompetence", exactly, not to be able to see into the future?

A coach's job is to deliver results in competitive games with the players at his disposal. Nothing more, nothing less.



Supposedly much better coaches that McNamara haven't got England/GB anywhere near as close to beating both Australia and New Zealand as they did in the World Cup.

How dare you come on here with your reasoned and sensible analysis, completely devoid of baseless opinion presented as fact. Disgraceful.

meanwhile, reports that McNamara has gone for an early Bath appear to have been exaggerated. He has been offered the job as assistant coach at Sydney Roosters, so the Roosters join a lengthening list of organisations and people who have strange delusions that he can coach a bit. Silly them. If only they'd asked one or two experts on the VT who know far better than mugs like one of the premier rugby league's premier clubs. I mean, what on earth would they know about it?