portosaint wrote: There are quite a lot of threads on here where the criticism of our coaching is just palmed off as being negative and not constructive. We are just armchair coaches, what would we know, etc. There is no room for criticism in some peoples eyes. There are also scathing attacks on some of our younger players which I don't find justified, and I believe that coaching was our main reason for this. I have been a staunch defender of giving some of our youngsters time, and I think my posting history would show this.
Surprisingly, my post was written with the intention of being largely positive. We are not world beaters and yes, our scoring is well down. I mentioned our ball use inside 50 in my post.
My whole point was and is, we looked so much better with a different game style. The guys took risks, the ball use was better, the kids got a chance to show they can play. They were generally exciting to watch and the performance speaks volumes for the way the coaches approached this game as opposed to the first four.
'Vindicated' might have been a strong word, but it is mind boggling to think that we MAY have snatched an extra win or at the very least have better percentage had our coaches identified this sooner. We all saw it... But what would we know?
I find it strange that out of all the positives in my post, people are hanging on one word. If anyone thinks the criticism of our coaching has not been construed as negative and just plain whining, they are reading a different forum to me.
I don't disagree with the majority of what you've written... heck a handful of forumites from Bluthy (bless him should he come back), Con and myself have been expressing concerns about the more conservative aspects of Richo's style since early last year, and his performance has been under reasonable scrutiny since our disappointing finish to last season and our lacklustre preseason.
Maybe I am reading a different forum but I would have thought over the last 4 months the majority of feedback around the coaching has been more negative then positive (and pbly rightly so). I'm sure there's been some spirited debate on the topic no doubt but yes that aspect of your post caught my attention.
Anyway, no disagreements from me about the rest of what you've written